'iii^H 


LIBRARY 

OF  THE 

University  of  California. 


GIFT  OK 

,jyiva<W-v^. Cl V>W^^ 

Class 


ISs^.i 


Zbc  TIlntrersltB  of  Cblcaflo 

FOUNDED  BY  JOHN  D.  ROCKEFKLLBR 


SOME  PRINCIPLES  OF  ELIZABETHAN 
STAGING 


A  DISSERTATION 

SUBMITTED    TO    THE    FACULTY     OF    THE    GRADUATE    SCHOOL    OF    ARTS 

AND    LITERATURE  IN    CANDIDACY    FOR    THE    DEGREE 

OF    DOCTOR    OF    PHILOSOPHY 

(department   of   ENGLISH) 


BY 

GEORGE  F.  REYNOLDS 


CHICAGO 

THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CHICAGO  PRESS 

1905 


^ 


0 


j^A 


To  Professor  A.  H.  Tolman,  who  first  interested  me  in  this 
subject,  and  to  Professors  F.  I.  Carpenter  and  J.  M.  Manly  who 
have  assisted  untiringly  by  suggestion,  guidance,  and  the  loan  of 
books,  I  desire  to  express  thanks  and  deep  obligation.  Without 
their  kindly  assistance,  this  study,  small  as  it  is,  could  never  have 
been  undertaken  nor  completed. 


'  Of  THE 

UNIVERSITY 


SOME  PRINCIPLES  OF  ELIZABETHAN  STAGING.' 
PART  I. 

There  is  perhaps  no  subject  connected  with  Shakespeare  on 
which  there  is  more  uncertainty  of  opinion  than  on  the  actual 
staging  of  his  plays.     No  one  any  longer  doubts  that  the  public 
stage  consisted  of  three  important  parts :  a  front,  uninclosed  plat- 
form; a  rear  stage,  separated  from  the  front  by  a  curtain;  and  a 
balcony  or  upper  stage,     A  growing  feeling  exists  also  that  the     ^^ 
stage  was  fairly  well-furnished  with  properties.     But  the  exact 
relation  of  one  part  to  another,  the  precise  list  of  furnishings,  and, 
more    important    than  either  of    these,  the  actual  customs  and   / 
methods  of  play-production,  yet  remain  to  be  determined.    Given 
such  a  triple  stage,  how  were  plays  performed  which  consisted  of    | 
a  large  number  of   short,  rapidly  changing  scenes,  and  which    I 
demanded,  and  often  were  clearly  furnished  with,  numerous  and 
sometimes  heavy  properties?     They  could  not  have  been  staged 
according  to  modern  methods,  with  a  complete  and  harmonious 
background   for  each   scene.     What,   then,  was   the   method   or 
methods  by  which  these  plays  were  produced? 

Practically  but  one  answer  has  been  given — that  of  Kilian, 

1  This  study  is  only  part  of  a  more  comprehensive  one  now  in  preparation,  discussing 
not  only  the  staging  of  the  Elizabethan  plays,  but  also  the  actual  construction  of  the  stage 
itself  and  the  properties  which  furnished  it.  Most  of  the  opinions  advanced  here  were 
formulated  three  years  ago,  but  the  publication  of  Brodmeiee's  Die  Shakespeare  Bilhne  in 
1904  has  made  necessary  the  reconsideration  of  the  alternation  theory  in  the  more  reason- 
able form  in  which  he  presents  it.  I  have  attempted,  however,  neither  to  answer  nor  to 
review  his  valuable  contribution,  leaving  many  interesting  points  in  his  dissertation  quite 
unnoticed. 

The  two  pictures  of  theater  interiors  reproduced  are  from  photographs  of  the  originals 
in  the  British  Museum.  The  Roxana  picture  has  been  many  times  reprinted,  but  not,  I 
believe,  with  the  whole  title-page.  The  Messallina  picture  has  never  before  been  published, 
and  seems  practically  unknown  to  writers  upon  the  stage.  My  attention  was  called  to  it  by 
a  note  by  William  Rendle,  Notes  and  Queries,  7th  Ser.,  Vol.  VI,  p.  221.  It  closely  resembles 
the  Roxana  picture,  both  agreeing  in  showing  the  railing,  the  hexagonaU?)  stage,  and  the 
window-like  balcony.  The  Messallina  picture  is  valuable,  however,  for  its  figured  stage 
curtain,  its  balcony  curtain,  and  its  peculiar  projecting  tiring-house. 

All  references  in  the  following  pages  are,  I  think,  self-explanatory.  Perhaps  it  should 
be  noted  that  the  dates  and  the  names  of  theatrical  companies  or  theaters  given  after  the 
names  of  the  plays  are  those  upon  the  earliest  title-pages.  Where  it  has  seemed  advan- 
tageous I  have  also  given  the  date  of  composition,  usually  following  Ward  or  Fleay,  though 
not  necessarily  accepting  their  conclusions  as  final. 

581]  1  [Modern  Philology,  April,  1905 


2  George  F.  Reynolds 

Genee,  etc.,  in  the  Shakespeare  Jahrhuch;^  of   Brandl,  in  the 
Introduction    to  the   new    Schlegel-Tieck    Shakespeare;    and    of 
Brodmeier,  in  his  recently  published  dissertation,  Die  Shakespeare 
Buhne  nach   den  alien  Buhnenamveisungen^   (Weimar,  1904). 
i  These  writers  assume  the  triple  stage ;  suppose  most,  if  not  all,  of 
ithe  properties  to  have  been  placed  on  the  rear  stage,  and  by  the 
■use   of   a  few   of    Shakespeare's  plays,  Brodmeier   alone   taking 
account  of  all,  attempt  to  establish  what  one  may  call  an  alterna- 
tion staging;  that  is,  that  the  plays  were  so  constructed  that  no 
j  two  differently  set  scenes  on  the  rear  stage  ever  came  directly  in 
succession,  but  that  front  and  rear  stage  were  used  alternately,  * 
the  rear  stage  being  arranged  while  the  front  stage  was  in  use. 

It  is  not  quite  true  to  say  that  this  is  the  only  method  of  stage 
management  yet  suggested,  for  early  plays,  like  Nice  Wanton 
(1560)  and  Jocasta  (1566),  obviously  were  written  for  no  such 
system.  Most  of  the  earlier  dramas  frankly  avoid  all  properties. 
Nice  Wanton  requires  nothing  in  the  way  of  setting,  and  the 
scene  is  practically  the  stage  itself.  Jocasta  is  more  elaborate, 
for  it  requires  a  house  front  at  either  side  of  the  stage ;  but,  built 
upon  classical  models,  it  has  but  one  scene,  the  place  of  action 
never  changing.  So  complex  a  play  as  The  Contention  of  Liberal- 
ity and  Prodigality  (1602),  with  its  "homely  bower"  for  Virtue 
and  its  "palace"  for  Fortune,  recurring  throughout  the  play, 
suggests  a  similar  classic '  staging,  but  rather  jnore  highly  elabo- 
rated. Most  Elizabethan  plays,  however,  cannot  be  staged  at  all 
according  to  the  classical  method,  or  according  to  the  simple 
method  of  the  early  plays,  though  some,  in  their  numerous 
unlocated  scenes,  do  suggest  the  latter.  The  alternation  theory 
therefore  remains  the  only  one  yet  suggested  at  all  applicable  to 
most  plays. 

It  is,  however,  as  presented  by  its  advocates  up  to  this  time, 
extremely  unsatisfactory.     German  students  seem  to  have  accepted 

1  See,  especially,  Genee,  "  Ueber  die  scenischen  Formen  Shakespeare's  in  ihren  Ver- 
haltnisz  zur  Buhne  seiner  Zeit,"  Jahrbuch,  Vol.  XXVI ;  Kilian,  "  Die  scenischen  Formen 
Shakespeare's,  ibid.,  Vol.  XXVIII;  Kilian,  "Shakespeare  auf  der  moderneu  Buhne,"  ibid.. 
Vol.  XXXVI.  See  also,  for  a  short  summary  of  the  alternation  theory,  A.  H.  Tolman's 
Introduction  to  Julius  Ccesar,  in  the  "  Star  Series  of  English  Classics." 

2  Brodmeier  adds  a  fourth  stage,  the  space  discovered  when  the  stage  doors  were 
opened.  Everybody  admits  that  this  was  sometimes  used  in  the  plays,  but  hardly  with  the 
frequency  he  supposes. 

582 


^ 'of  THE 


Some  Principles  of  Elizabethan  Staging  3 

it  unhesitatingly  and  reason  from  it  as  if  it  were  thoroughly 
established.  On  the  contrary,  it  rests  on  a  singularly  limited 
study,  and  that  of  inconclusive  sources;  it  assumes  as  certain  and 
universal  an  unproved  reconstruction  of  the  Elizabethan  theater; 
it  is  supported  by  principles  and  tests  which  contradict  one 
another;  and  it  disregards  entirely  several  plays  which  it  cannot 
easily  explain.  It  has  been  advanced  as  a  dominating  factor  in 
play-construction,  but  it  is  doubtful  whether  it  ever  influenced,  in 
any  very  pronounced  or  vital  way,  any  Elizabethan  dramatist. 
To  show  the  grounds  for  these  objections  is  the  purpose  of  the 
first  part  of  this  study. 

In  the  first  place,  Shakespeare's  plays,  to  which  alternationists 
have  practically  confined  themselves,  are  far  less  complete  in 
specific  directions  than  those  of  other  authors — Greene  or  Hey- 
wood,  for  example.  The  Wonder  of  Women  (1606),  one  of  the 
richest  of  plays  in  directions  of  value,  has  a  note  to  its  epilogue 
which  says:  "After  all,  let  me  intreat  my  Reader  not  to  taxe  me 
for  the  fashion  of  the  Entrances  and  Musique  of  this  tragedy,  for 
know  it  is  printed  only  as  it  was  presented  by  youths,  and  after 
the  fashion  of  the  private  stage."  If  we  had  Shakespeare's  plays 
in  a  similarly  complete  form,  we  might  find  that  our  present 
theories  needed  to  be  largely  changed.  As  it  is,  it  is  not  safe  to 
trust  solely  to  the  directions  of  his  plays ;  for  questions  of  staging, 
many  other  plays  are  more  valuable.  In  the  second  place,  the 
plays  of  Shakespeare  range  in  date  over  a  long  period  of  years, 
and  were  given  at  several  theaters.  Presumably  the  stage  cus- 
toms and  furnishings  changed  from  time  to  time  and  varied  in 
different  theaters.  Instead  of  confining  himself  to  one  author, 
the  student  should  examine  all  the  plays  performed  either  at  one 
theater  or  in  one  period.  In  questions  of  stage  construction  and 
use  of  properties  the  study  by  theaters  will  yield  the  most  satis- 
factory results,  since  the  several  theaters  may  have  varied  in  these 
particulars ;  but  dramatic  customs  are  a  matter  more  of  long  periods 
and  general  usage — slowly  arising  and  slowly  decaying,  but  pre- 
vailing pretty  generally  while  they  do  prevail.  There  are  a  few 
plays,  like  Sir  Thomas  More  {ca.  1590),  The  Massacre  of  Paris 
(1596?),  or  Faustus  (1604),  so  cut,  interpolated,  or  disarranged 

583 


4  George  F.  Reynolds 

that  it  is  useless  to  attempt  to  form  theories  which  will  explain 
them.  Others,  like  The  Taming  of  the  Shrew  (1623),  not  pub- 
lished until  long  after  their  first  composition,  may  represent  in 
their  directions  such  varied  conditions  of  stage  custom  that  they 
are  of  little  value  for  any  one  period.  But,  aside  from  these, 
one  must  include  in  his  investigation  all  the  plaxs_of_ a„given 
period,  finding  some  theory  or  group  of  theories  which  will 
explam  Jhem  consistently  and  completely.' 

But  quite  as  important  as  a  wide  and  comprehensive  reading 
of  the  plays  of  a  period  is  the  consideration  of  each  play  as  a 
whole.  If  theories  of  stage  management  are  to  be  valuable  at  all, 
they  must  apply  to  whole  plays  and  not  merely  to  scattered  acts 
or  scenes.  Strangely  enough,  few  of  the  alternationists  seem  to 
have  recognized  this  principle,  or  at  least  to  have  reckoned  with 
it.  Brodmeier,  whose  very  purpose  is  to  explain  the  staging  of 
Shakespeare's  plays,  presents  only  a  study  of  scenes.  Perhaps 
one  could  make  from  his  scattered  hints  a  consistent  staging  of 
each  individual  play,  but  he  certainly  has  not  shown  his  reader 
the  way  to  it.  It  is  true  that  there  is  some  reason  for  this.  It 
is  a  relatively  simple  matter  to  find  a  few  scenes  in  succession 
which  will  show  a  possible  alternation  in  the  use  of  the  front  and 
back  stage,  but  to  find  a  whole  play  arranged  on  that  or  any  other 

1  In  this  study  I  have  examined  practically  every  extant  play  accessible  to  students, 
published  between  1559  and  1603.  I  have  also  included  all  plays  published  later  which 
probably  were  produced  during  that  period.  Plays  produced  at  court  or  under  court  influ- 
ence, like  Old  Fortunatus,  have  been  included  and  used  as  illustrations  in  spite  of  that  fact ; 
for,  however  the  court  plays  differed  in  furnishings  or  form  of  stage,  in  dramatic  conven- 
tions they  probably  did  not  vary  widely  from  the  usual  custom.  The  reason  for  choosing  1603 
is  that  it  not  only  marked  the  end  of  the  Elizabethan  drama,  precisely  speaking,  but  that 
it  also  was  a  time  around  which  cluster  other  important  dramatic  events.  The  erection 
of  the  Globe  (1.599)  and  Fortune  (1599) ;  the  resumption  of  playing  by  the  children  of  Paul's 
and  the  children  of  the  Revels,  which  also  happened  not  long  before  this  — all  mark  it  as  a 
turning-point  in  the  drama.  The  difficulty  of  assigning  plays  of  this  period  to  the  theater 
in  which  they  were  produced  is  so  great  that  study  by  theaters  is  hazardous  and  compara- 
tively valueless.  In  the  Jacobean  period,  however,  I  believe  it  will  be  possible  to  follow 
this  method  with  profit.  From  a  lack  of  this  knowledge  of  the  exact  stage  construction,  I 
have  drawn  very  little  from  Shakespeare;  the  staging  of  his  plays  can  be  satisfactorily 
explained  only  when  the  construction  of  the  Globe  and  Blackfriars  is  more  exactly  deter- 
mined. I  have  throughout  used  the  best  modern  editions  of  the  plays  —  best  in  that  they 
preserve  the  original  stage  directions.  Most  of  the  directions  of  importance  have  been  col- 
lated with  the  originals  in  the  British  Museum.  BuUen's  editions,  which  I  have  had  occa- 
sion to  use  more  than  those  of  other  editors,. seem  substantially  correct,  except  that  of 
Marlowe,  which  varies  so  widely  in  its  directions  from  the  original  quartos  that  I  have 
used  few  illustrations  from  his  plays.  These  plays,  however,  present  no  evidence  contra- 
dictory to  my  conclusions,  but  rather  decidedly  support  them. 

584 


Some  Principles  of  Elizabethan  Staging  5 

principle  is  difficult.  To  be  of  value  as  evidence,  a  play  must 
contain  so  many  directions  or  unmistakable  textual  hints  indicat- 
ing the  use  of  properties  or  some  specific  part  of  the  stage,  that 
practically  every  scene  is  definitely  located.  This,  however,  very 
few  plays  do;  most  of  them,  so  far  as  any  indicated  arrangement 
is  concerned,  are  quite  inconclusive.  Mention  of  the  use  of  a 
curtain,  the  only  obvious  test  of  a  rear  stage  scene,  is  compara- 
tively rare,  and  even  this,  in  very  many  cases,  can  be  interpreted 
as  referring  to  a  bed  curtain.'  In  order  to  prove  alternation  even 
between  scattered  groups  of  scenes,  its  advocates  have  been  com- 
pelled to  formulate  certain  principles  of  stage  custom  and  tests  of 
rear-stage  scenes,  holding  that  in  plays  so  apparently  deficient  in 
directions,  such  assumptions  of  the  use  of  the  curtain,  where  it 
is  not  specifically  mentioned,  are  justifiable. 

The  principles  upon  which  the  whole  theory  rests  may  be 
y  summarized  as  follows:'  the  performance  of  an  Elizabethan  play 
was  continuous  f  in  consequence  of  this,  two  rear-stage  scenes 
with  different  settings  could  not  come  in  direct  succession,^  since 
their  rearrangement  would  cause  a  pause  in  the  action  /all  proper- 
ties were  confined  to  the  rear  stage)  These  principles,  though 
not  definitely  stated  by  all  the  writers,  obviously  must  be  assumed 
to  be  the  basis  of  their  argument,  or  there  is  no  need  of  alterna- 
tion. The  tests  of  rear-stage  scenes,  by  which  these  principles 
have  been  applied  to  the  plays,  have  not  been  widely  illustrated 
by  anybody  but  Brodmeier.     His  principal  tests  of  rear  stage  or 

iJn  Golden  Age  (1611,  Red  Bull),  Act  IV,  "curtain"  can  scarcely  mean  anything  else 
than  "bed-curtain."  The  scene  has  been  in  the  outer  room  of  a  castle.  Danse,  talking  to 
Jupiter  disguised  as  a  peddler,  says  (p.  66) :  "  Yon  is  my  doore.  Dare  not  to  enter  there.  I 
will  to  rest."  Jupiter  obtains  permission  to  sleep  in  this  outer  room.  As  soon  as  Danse 
and  her  four  watchful  beldams  are  gone,  he  throws  off  his  disguise,  sayings  "  Yon  bright 
Queene  I'le  now  court  like  a  King."  Exit.  But  instead  of  his  going  in  to  her  comes  this  direc- 
tion :  "  Enter  the  foure  old  Beldames  drawing  out  Danse's  bed ;  she  in  it.  They  place  foure 
tapers  at  the  foure  corners,"  and  withdraw.  Jupiter  re-enters,  "  crown'd  with  his  Imperial 
Robes,"  for  which  he  obviously  went  out,  puts  out  the  lights,  and  Danse  says :  "  Before 
you  come  to  bed,  the  curtaines  draw  "  (p.  69).  At  the  end  of  this  part  of  the  scene  "  the  bed 
isdrawne  in,"  Jupiter's  clownish  companion  enters,  and  the  scene  is  again  the  outer  room. 
If  this  curtain  were  the  stage  curtain,  the  bed  would  hardly  have  been  so  drawn  out  and  in. 
But  generally  when  a  curtain  or  curtains  (I  can  distinguish  no  difference  in  the  use  of  these 
terms)  is  alluded  to,  the  stage  curtain  was  probably  meant.  Almost  every  important  theater 
had  a  curtain  and  would  be  likely  to  use  it  for  concealing  the  bringing  in  of  a  bed,  if  for 
anything.    Each  direction  has  to  be  interpreted,  therefore,  in  the  light  of  its  context. 

2KILIAN,  Jahrbuch,  Vol.  XXXVI,  p.  235. 

3  Ibid.,  and  Beandl,  "  Introduction,"  p.  31.  ^  Brodmeiee,  op.  cit.,  p.  97. 

585 


6  GrEORGE    F.    REYNOLDS 

_m  scenes  are:  discovery  by  means  of  a  curtain — though  small 
discovered  scenes  like  the  Tempest,  Act  V,  where  Prospero  "dis- 
couers  Ferdinand  and  Miranda,  playing  at  Chesse"  (p.  64),  he 
places  in  his  fourth  stage;  the  use  of  properties;  the  use  of  the 
doors;  the  use  of  the  balcony;  the  use  of  arras.  Kilian'  classes 
as  in  scenes  all  the  Belmont  scenes  in  the  Merchant  of  Venice, 
^presumably  because  they  are  largely  room  scenes;  and^  considers 
\/  any  scene  as  played  on  the  rear  stage  in  which  a  character  dies 

fand  there  is  no  hint  jn  directions  or  text  of  a  removal  of  the  body. 
Most  alternationists,  indeed,  tend  to  put  almost  any  located  scene 
on  the  rear  stage.  But  since  a  clash — that  is,  the  occurrence  of 
two  in  scenes  in  direct  succession — is  fatal  to  the  theory,  its  whole 
purpose  being  to  avoid  breaks  and  pauses  in  the  action,  scenes 
before  and  after  these  in  scenes  must  be  out  scenes.  Most  scenes 
in  some  way  or  other,  however,  are  located,  and  a  large  number 

I  use  doors  or  balconies  or  properties,  so  that  usually  only  short, 
relatively  unimportant  scenes  remain  to  be  classed  as  out.  This, 
in  turn,  leads  to  a  greater  emphasis  than  ever  on  the  rear  stage, 
and  to  classifying  as  oiit  any  short  scenes  of  which  the  purpose  is 
obscure.  At  once  a  purpose  easily  suggests  itself  for  such  scenes 
—  they  fill  the  time  while  the  rear  stage  is  being  prepared.  This 
is  the  final  result  of  the  theory:  authors,  in  order  to  secure  this 
alternation,  had  so  to  construct  their  plays  that  no  two  in  scenes 
should  occur  together,  and  actually  composed  short  "carpenter" 
\J  scenes  for  this  purpose.'  Alternation  becomes  therefore  a  factor 
in  play-construction — it  sums  up  the  influence  upon  the  play- 
wright of  his  theatrical  environment.  By  applying  these  tests  to 
Shakespeare's  plays,  a  large  number  of  examples  have  been 
secured  to  prove  and  substantiate  the  theory.  But  examples 
gathered  in  this  way  are  practically  valueless,  for  they  rest  for 
their  validity  upon  the  tests;  and  the  tests,  so  far  as  I  am  aware, 
no  one  has  taken  the  trouble  to  prove,  though  each  is  open  to 
serious  question,  if  not  to  absolute  denial. 

For  example,  the  statement  that  use  of  doors  or  balcony  indi- 

1  Loc.  cit.,  p.  235.  2  Ibid.,  p.  240. 

3SoKlLiAN,  loc.  cit.,  p.  236:  "  Eine  ganze  Reihe  von  Scenen  dankt  ihr  Dasein  nicht 
einem  kunstlerischen  Bedurfnis,  sondern  lediglich  einem  ausseren  technischen  Umstande, 
der  sich  aus  dem  primitiven  Buhnengeruste  jener  Zeit  ergab." 

586 


Some  Principles  of  Elizabethan  Staging  7 

cates  a  rear  stage  scene  depends  entirely  upon  one's  reconstruction 
of  an  Elizabethan  stage.  Brodmeier's — and  he  is  only  following 
Brandl' — is  based  on  the  familiar  picture  of  the  Swan  Theater,  to 
which  the  important  addition  is  made  of  a  curtain  between  the 
pillars.  Yet  even  the  reliability  of  the  original  picture  without 
this  imagined  addition  has  been  attacked  and  its  value  as  an 
authority  for  the  Elizabethan  playhouse  seriously  questioned. 
Lawrence^  insists  that  it  is  merely  "hearsay  evidence,"  being  the 
drawing  of  Arend  van  Buchell,  who  never  visited  England,  from 
the  instruction  of  DeWitt,  an  observer  so  inaccurate  that  his 
description  of  the  theater  is  wrong  both  as  to  the  size  and  its 
materials.  Moreover,  the  picture,  Lawrence  claims,  is  self- 
contradictory,  showing  a  movable  stage  supporting  fixed  columns, 
and  he  therefore  doubts  its  value  as  evidence  concerning  even  the 
Swan  Theater,  It  is  not  necessary  to  go  as  far  as  this,  perhaps, 
but  he  is  certainly  right  in  uttering  his  "stern  note  of  protest" 
against  accepting  the  picture  as  a  fair  representation  of  a  typical 
Elizabethan  stage.  For  one  thing,  though  he  does  not  notice 
this,  it  shows  but  two  doors,  and  many  of  the  old  theaters  had 
three;'*  and,  for  another,  it  not  only  shows  no  curtain,  but  also  no 

I  Loc.  cit,  p.  27.  2  Englische  Studien,  Vol.  XXXII,  Part  I,  p.  46. 

3  The  generally  received  opinion  that  there  were  but  two  doors  leading  from  the  stage 
to  the  dressing  rooms  is  founded,  no  doubt,  upon  the  Swan  picture  and  the  very  common 
direction  '"Enter  at  one  door  .  .  .  .;  enter  at  the  other  door  .  .  .  ."  The  directions,  how- 
ever, use  this  phrase,  "  the  other,"  very  loosely,  as  is  clear  from  the  directions  from  Jlf aid's 
Metamorphosis  given  helow.  The  following  directions  prove  the  existence  of  three  doors. 
Besides  the  Misfortunes  of  Arthur  (1587)  and  Jocasta  (1366),  the  directions  of  which  plainly 
require  three  entrances,  the  following  may  be  noted :  In  the  "  plat "  of  the  Seven  Deadly 
Sins  (Fleay  dates  1383)  occurs:  "Enter  queene  with  2  counsailors,  Mr.  Brian  Tho.  Goodale. 
to  them  Ferrex  and  Porrex  several  waies  with  drums  and  powers.  Gorboduk  entering  in 
the  midst  between."  Prologue  to  the  Four  Prentices  of  London  (Red  Bull,  1615,  but  acted 
according  to  Ward,  1603):  "Enter  three  in  blacke  clokes,  at  three  doores."  Maid's 
Metamoi-phosis  {leOO,  Paul's)  p.  137:    "Enter  loculo,  Frisco,  and  Mopso,  at   three  severall 

doores;  "  yet  only  a  dozen  pages  before  we  read,  "  Enter  at  one  doore  Mopso  singing 

Enter  at  the  other  door  Frisco  singing;  ....  Enter  loculo  in  the  midst  singing."  Plainly 
"other"  is  not  very  precisely  used.     In  like  manner,  Antonio's  Revenge  (1602,  Paul's),  V, 

has:  "Enter  at  one  door  Castillo  and  Forobosco All  these  go  softly  over  the  stage, 

whilst  at  the  other  door  enters  the  ghost  of  Andrugio,  who  passeth  by  them."  But  in 
Percy's  Faery  Pastoral  (written  also  for'  Paul's,  about  1601) ,  IV,  6,  occurs  the  direction : 
"  They  entered  at  seueral  doores  Learchus  at  the  midde  doore."  The  Travels  of  Three 
English  Brothers  (1607,  Queen's),  p.  90:  "Enter  three  seuerall  waies  the  three  Brothers." 
Other  illustrations  are  Eastward  Ho  (1605,  Blackfriars)  I,  1 ;  Fair  Em  (1631,  but  acted, 
according  to  Fleay,  ca.  1590),  I,  4;  Nobody  and  Somebody  (1606,  Queen's),  11.  1321-31;  Histrio- 
mastix  (1610,  but  acted  ca.  1.599),  V,  103;  Epicoene  (1609),  IV;  Covent  Garden  (1632,  (:;ockpit), 
V,  1,  and  English  Traveller  (1633,  Queen's,  Cockpit),  IV,  3.  It  seems  fairly  certain,  there- 
fore, that,  at  some  time  in  their  history,  the  Blackfriars,  Paul's,  Cockpit,  and  Red  Bull 
Theaters  had  three   stage  doors;    and    if   the  Blackfriars,  perhaps  the  Globe   (because 

587 


George  F.  Reynolds 

reasonable  place  to  suppose  one.  Brodmeier  appreciates,  in  some 
degree  at  least,  the  difficulty  of  hanging  a  curtain  on  the  Swan 
stage,  but  persuades  himself  that  it  could  have  hung  between  the 
pillars,  trying  to  prove  (p.  43)  that  the  space  between  the  pillars 
and  tiring-house  was  inclosed.  Perhaps  this  space  could  have 
been  closed,  rather  by  movable  curtains  than  in  some  permanent 
way,  as  he  supposes,  but  that  is  only  part  of  the  difficulty.  A 
curtain  hanging  from  the  "heavens"  would  be  difficult  to  manage 
and  would  hide  the  balcony,  rendering  its  curtain  useless.^  If 
!  we  can  judge  at  all  from  the  proportions  of  the  picture,  a  short 
curtain  would  not  conceal  the  rear  stage  from  the  upper  galleries, 
and  would  hide  the  balcony  from  the  spectators  in  the  yard  and 
lower  boxes.  The  more  one  attempts  to  hang  a  curtain  between 
the  Swan  pillars,  the  more  difficulties  he  will  discover.  The 
Swan  picture  therefore,  lacking  curtain,  lacking  three  doors,  is  not 
a  typical  theater.  It  is  only  adding  to  confusion  longer  so  to 
consider  it. 

Perhaps  there  was  no  typical  theater;  it  would  be  strange  if 
all  the  London  playhouses  had  been  alike.  Two,  and  perhaps 
three,  arrangements  are  entirely  conceivable:  Brandl  and  Brod- 
meier's,  in  which   the  curtain  hides  both   the  balcony  and  the 

theaters  at  which  the  same  plays  were  given  could  scarcely  differ  in  so  important  a  par- 
ticular) ;  and  if  the  Globe,  then  the  Fortune  (since  they  were  built  alike,  except  in  specified 
details).  Beodmeiee,  in  attempting  to  prove  that  there  were  side  entrances  to  the  stage, 
notes  the  following  instances  in  Shakespeare  which  certainly  point  to  three  doors:  (p.  50) 
Antony  and  Cleopatra,  III,  10;  (p.  44)  John,  II,  1;  (pp.  49,  50)  Macbeth,  11,1;  (p.  54)  Merry 
Wives  of  Windsor,  V,  5.  The  recognition  of  three  doors  leaves  his  argument  for  side 
entrances  singularly  weak.  They  may  have  existed,  but  are  unproved.  Side  walls  on  his 
rear  stage  are  very  improbable,  and  the  only  argument  for  side  entrances  remaining,  after 
three  doors  in  the  rear  are  supposed,  is  that  of  inconsistency.  So  in  Henry  F(1600),  III, 
1-3,  because  Henry  enters  to  storm  Harfleur,  the  doors  representing  the  gates  of  the  town, 
and  the  balcony,  its  walls,  Beodmeiee  (p.  45)  thinks  it  impossible  that  Henry,  supposed  to 
be  coming  from  some  place  outside  the  city,  should  have  entered  through  another  door,  cut 
through  the  same  wall.  In  view  of  other  inconsistencies  of  the  stage,  and  of  the  innumer- 
able scenes  in  which  the  doors  represent  at  the  same  time  different  places  (e.  g.,the  general 
directions  to  Peecy's  Cuckqueens'  and  Cuckolds''  Errants  (MSS  dated  1601,  Paul's),  this 
objection  is  of  little  weight.  Moreover,  the  following  example  shows  specifically  that  it  is 
unsupported  by  the  plays:  Four  Prentices  of  London  (1615,  Queen's,  Red  Bull,  but  acted 
according  to  Ward,  1603?).  The  Christians  are  assaulting  Jerusalem.  The  Turks  are  on  the 
walls  (p.  2,30).  But  (p.  234),  "The  Christians  are  repulst.  Enter  at  two  seuerall  dores, 
Guy  and  Eustace  climbe  vp  the  wals,  beate  the  Pagans,"  etc.  The  direction  specifies 
distinctly  entrance  through  the  doors  by  enemies  who  assault  the  walls  directly  above. 

1  That  a  balcony  curtain  existed  is  shown  by  the  Red  Bull  and  Messallina  pictures,  and 
among  other  passages  in  the  plays,  by  Henry  F/7/ (1613),  V,  2;  hy  Wounds  of  Civil  War 
(1594,  Admiral's),  V,  2;  and  Antonio's  Revenge  (1602,  Paul's),  I,  2,  as  well  as  Act  V  of  the  same 
play. 


Some  Principles  of  Elizabethan  Staging  9 

doors;  the  "corridor"  (rear)  stage,  if  I  may  term  it  so,  in  which 
the  curtain  hung  from  a  projecting  balcony,  thus  leaving  it  unin- 
closed,  but  hiding  the  doors;  and  the  "alcove"  stage,  in  which 
neither  the  balcony  nor  all  the  doors  were  concealed,  two  doors, 
presumably,  lying  at  either  side  the  curtained  space.'  Brod- 
meier's  stage  could  be  of  almost  any  size,  depending  on  how  far 
out  the  pillars  stood.  The  corridor  stage  would,  as  the  name 
implies,  be  rather  shallow,  since  it  could  scarcely  be  much  deeper 
than  the  balcony.  The  alcove  stage,  in  its  name,  gives  a  mis- 
leading impression  of  smallness,  for  the  alcove  was  not  neces- 
sarily very  limited  in  size,  t  In  the  Fortune  Theater,  according 
to  the  contract,^  the  whole  stage  was  to  be  forty-three  feet  wide, 
and  in  depth  was  to  extend  to  the  middle  of  the  yard,  a  distance 
not  exceeding  twenty-eight  feet.  The  rear  stage  in  such  a  theater 
could  hardly  have  been  other  than  an  alcove,  for  a  long  shallow 
stage  would  have  been  awkward  and  useless.  The  alcove,  how- 
ever, could  easily  have  measured  twenty  feet  in  width,  and  then 
left  over  ten  feet  on  either  side  for  the  doors.  There  is,  there- 
fore, no  need  of  supposing  the  alcove  stage  diminutive,  although 
it  probably  was  shallow.  All  these  suggested  arrangements  are 
probable  enough;  perhaps  all  actually  existed;  no  one  form,  at 
least,  can  without  proof  be  adopted  as  normal  or  exclusive] 

The  alternation  theory,  however,  bases  itself  almost  entirely 
on  the  form  described  by  Brodmeier,  though  it  is  the  most  doubt- 
ful of  all.     The  Swan   picture  is  no  argument  for  that  form  of 
stage,  for  the  shading  under   the  balcony  may  be  interpreted  to  <*. 
mean  that  the  balcony  projects,  in  which  case  the  curtain  could  ^^■ 
be    suspended    from    it.     The    other    pictures    are    unanimously  yj 
against  it,  since  in  each  the  balcony  is  not  hidden  by  the  stage 
curtain.^     The  objection  urged  against  supposing  a  curtain  on  the 
Swan  stage,  that,  if  it  was  long  enough  to  hide  the  balcony,  it 
would  be  awkward  to  manage  and  would  render  the  balcony  cur- 

1  For  if  the  curtain  did  not  hide  the  doors,  it  probably  did  not  hide  the  balcony  either; 
the  natural  place  to  suppose  the  rear  stage  is  therefore  beneath  the  balcony,  and  between 
the  doors,  the  most  easily  visible  position  for  it. 

2  Halliwell-Phillipps,  Outlines  of  the  Life  of  Shakespeare,  Vol.  I,  p.  304. 

■''  By  stage  curtain  I  mean  here  and  elsewhere  the  curtain  hiding  the  rear  stage,  as 
distinguished  from  that  of  the  balcony,  or  that  possible  before  a  single  door,  or  before 
some  special  structure. 


10  George  F.  Reynolds 

tain  useless,  applies  to  any  other  theater  as  well.  Moreover,  if 
spectators  sat  in  the  balcony,  they  would  be  unable  to  see  any  out 
scene  at  all.^  To  these  practical  objections  against  a  curtain  con- 
cealing the  balcony  may  be  added  the  testimony  of  the  plays 
themselves. 

In  Antonio'' s  Revenge  (1602,  Paul's),  I,  2,  194,  a  group  of  men 
are  serenading  a  lady.  One  says:  "See,  look,  the  curtain  stirs." 
The  direction  continues:  "The  curtain's  drawn  and  the  body  of 
Feliche,  stabb'd  thick  with  wounds,  appears  hung  up."    The  lover 

continues:   "What  villain  bloods  the  window  of  my  love 

Death's  at  thy  window,  awake,  bright  Mellida."  Near  the  end  of 
the  scene,  which  is  also  the  end  of  the  act  (308,  340),  are  remarks 
which  show  that  the  body  is  still  in  sight.  Act  II  is  in  a  church, 
and  a  hearse  is  brought  in  with  the  body  of  another  victim  and 
left  there,  appearing  again  in  Act  III.  But  in  Act  II,  without 
the  actors  leaving  the  stage  and  immediately  after  the  hearse 
scene,  the  place  of  action  shifts  to  the  scene  of  Act  I,  and  the 
father  addresses  a  passionate  speech  to  his  son's  body.  Not  till 
IV,  1,  232,  is  there  a  command  to  take  down  the  body  of  Feliche. 
The  body  hung  in  the  15alcony,  for  allusions  to  ladies'  windows 
usually  refer  to  the  openings  of  the  upper  stage,  and  every  indica- 
tion points  to  its  being  out  of  reach  from  below.  But  if  the  body 
did  appear  in  the  balcony,  there  is,  according  to  the  principles  of 
alternation,  a  violent  clash:  the  first  part  of  Act  II  being  in  a 
church  with  a  hearse;  the  second,  in  front  of  the  palace  with  the 
body  exposed  above.  If  the  balcony,  however,  projected  over  the 
rear  stage  and  was  not  concealed  by  the  lower  curtain.  Act  II 
would  be  easy  to  explain.  The  first  part  of  the  scene  would  be 
played  on  the  rear  stage,  the  action  would  gradually  pass  forward, 
the  lower  curtains  close,  the  upper  ones  open,  and  the  scene 
continue  without  interruption— the  clash  entirely  avoided. 

In  the  Wounds  of  Civil  War  (1594,  Admiral's)  V,  2,  "Marius 
[appears]  vpon  the  wals  [of  Preneste]  with  the  Citizens"  (p.  64). 
Many  kill  themselves  there,  but  there  is  no  indication  that  the 

1  Probably  they  did  not  sit  there.  There  is  much  more  reason  for  thinking  that  the 
people  shown  in  the  Swan  picture  are  musicians,  or  actor-spectators  of  a  play  within  a 
play,  than  actual  spectators.  The  proof  of  this  is  too  long  to  be  given  here.  One  argu- 
ment, however,  is  the  one  in  the  text  — the  impossibility  of  devising  any  stage  which  will  be 
consistent  with  their  presence. 

590 


Some  Principles  of  Elizabethan  Staging  11 

bodies  are  removed — more  evidence  of  a  special  balcony  curtain. 
Scene  3  uses  a  throne,  however— "Scilla  seated  in  his  roabes  of 
state  is  saluted  by  the  Citizens"  (p.  67).  Therefore,  according  to 
alternation,  there  is  a  clash,  which  could  again,  however,  be 
removed  by  supposing  that  the  balcony  projected  over  the  rear 
stage. 

But  it  may  be  objected  that,  if  the  rear  stage  was  below  the 
balcony,  people  in  the  balcony  could  not  see  the  scenes  underneath 
them.  Even  if  spectators  did  not  sit  there,  actors  often  did,  who 
were  supposed  to  be  observing  scenes  on  the  rear  stage.  So  it 
would  he  in  David  and  Bethsabe  (1599),!.  1:  "He  [the  Prologue] 
drawes  a  curtaine  and  discouers  Bethsabe,  with  her  Maid,  bathing 
ouer  a  spring:  she  sings,  and  David  sits  aboue,  vewing  her." 
Here,  of  course,  David  should  be  able  to  see  Bethsabe ;  but  if  that 
is  insisted  upon,  a  worse  difficulty  arises.  The  very  next  scene 
requiries  that  the  balcony  be  used  as  the  walls  of  Rabath.  If 
both  rear  stage  and  balcony  were  concealed  by  the  stage  curtain, 
a  decided  clash  would  result,  for  the  "spring"  furnishing  must  be 
removed.  If  the  balcony  was  above  the  rear  stage,  however,  as 
soon  as  the  scene  between  David  and  Bethsabe  was  over,  the 
curtains  could  have  closed  below  and  the  action  continued  without 
interruption/  The  balcony  in  the  theater  in  which  this  play  was 
given  was  not  behind  the  rear  stage,  or  clashes  count  for  nothing. 
The  fact  that  David  could  not  see  Bethsabe  while  she  was  in  the 
rear  stage  is  of  little  importance.  He  could  have  seemed  to  see 
her,  the  audience  could  see  them  both — that  was  all  that  was 
necessary.  Similar  situations  arise  with  added  arguments  in 
James  IV  (1598) ;  The  Looking  Glass  for  London  (1594) ;  and 
The  Taming  of  the  Shrew  (1623).  In  James  IV,  Bohan  (1.  109, 
Induction)  tells  Oberon:  "That  story  haue  I  set  down;  gang  with 
me  to  the  gallery,  and  Vie  shew  thee  the  same  in  action."  Perhaps 
they  did  not  sit  in  the  balcony  when  the  simpler  set  of  act  inter- 
ludes (those  printed  between  each  act)  were  used,  for  they  seem 
to  come  on  and  go  off  for  each  interlude;  but  in  the  more  elab- 

1  Of  course,  if  any  hangings  representing  walls  were  to  be  hung  out,  there  would  be  a 
clash  which  no  arrangement  of  the  stage  could  remove,  and  this  instance,  though  weakening 
the  argument  at  this  point,  would  strengthen  it  a  little  farther  on  in  the  discussion  of 
incongruities. 

591 


12  George  F.  Keynolds 

orate  set  of  interludes '  there  is  no  hint  of  their  entering  and 
leaving  the  stage,  but  rather  that  they  sat  somewhere  throughout 
the  play  observing  it.  In  the  Looking  Glass  for  London,  Oseas 
the  Prophet  is  "let  down  over  the  stage  in  a  throne"  (1.  163),  and 
from  that  point  until  1.  2020  remains  there  commenting  on  nearly 
every  scene.  Yet  11.  572-605,  for  example,  have  the  curtains 
closed.  Did  Oseas  disappear  from  view  also?  In  The  Taming 
of  the  Shrew,  Sly  and  his  companions  sit  above  to  watch  the  play. 
It  is  impossible  to  suppose  that  these  actor-spectators  were 
concealed  from  sight  during  the  oui  scenes.  Yet  that  is  what  the 
situation  would  be  if  the  balcony  were  behind  the  curtain.  The 
slight  unreality  involved  in  their  being  unable  to  see  the  infrequent 
scenes  on  the  rear  stage  is  not  half  so  confusing  as  this  would  be. 

From  these  plays,  therefore,  it  seems  that  in  the  theaters  where 
they  were  produced,  and  at  the  time  when  they  were  produced, 
the  balcony  was  not  hidden  by  the  lower  curtain.  Three  of  them 
were  by  Shakespeare's  own  company,  all  are  contemporary,  and 
all  but  the  Shrew  were  published  not  long  after  production,  and 
are  therefore  of  undoubted  authority.  They  do  not  prove  that 
all  theaters  were  arranged  so  that  the  lower  curtain  did  not  hide 
the  balcony;  they  only  established  a  strong  presumption  that 
some  were.  The  complete  agreement  of  the  Roxana,  Messallina, 
and  Red  Bull  pictures  on  this  point  is  strong  corroboration,  even 
though  they  are  too  late  in  date  to  be  taken  as  direct  proof.  The 
plays  and  pictures  together  are,  however,  sufficient  to  show  that 
in  proposing  the  use  of  the  balcony  as  a  sure  test  of  a  rear-stage 
scene  Brodmeier  is  making  an  entirely  unwarranted  assumption, 
for  the  type  of  theater  it  presupposes  is  not  known  to  have  existed 
at  all,  much  less  to  have  been  the  only  form. 

For  the  use  of  doors  as  a  test  there  is  much  stronger  evidence. 
A  curtain  on  the  Swan  stage  would  certainly  hide  the  two  doors 
shown  in  the  picture;  that  on  the  Red  Bull  stage  conceals  any 
stage  doors  opening  upon  it;"  the  Messallina  and  Roxana  stages, 

1  Manly,  Specimeyis  of  the  Pre-Shaksperean  Drama,  Vol.  II,  pp.  351-54. 

2  The  Red  Bull  picture,  published  in  1672,  dates,  Mr.  Lawrence  thinks  (Englische  Studien, 
Vol.  XXXII,  Part  I,  p.  42)  from  1656.  The  footlights  and  suspended  candles  show  that  at  this 
stage  in  its  history  it  depended  upon  artificial  illumination,  and  that  it  therefore  was  roofed. 
But  this  was  the  most  characteristic  feature  of  the  "private  houses."  The  author  of  the 
Historia  Histricmica,  however  (published  1699,  but  written  by  some  one  well  acquainted  with 

592 


Some  Principles  of  Elizabethan  Staging  13 

though  they  allow  the  supposition  that  other  doors,  not  shown  in 
the  picture,  existed  at  either  side  of  the  stage,  hardly  suggest  any 
such  theory;  so  that  the  weight  of  the  evidence  offered  by  the 
pictures  is  decidedly  in  favor  of  the  door  test  for  rear  stage  scenes. 

But  that  another  type  of  stage  is  conceivable,  and  has  seemed 
reasonable  to  students,  is  plain  from  Lawrence's  article  already 
referred  to,  in  which  he  contends  that  the  curtain  in  a  typical 
theater  could  not  have  hidden  the  doors,  although  he  gives  little 
specific  proof,  and  from  two  remarks  of  Genee,  who  also  gives 
no  proof.  In  the  Jahrhuch  (Vol.  XXVI,  p.  133)  the  latter  says 
that  there  was  "in  der  Mitte  des  Hintergrundes  eine  nischenartige 
Vertiefung  der  Biihne;"  and  in  Entwicklung  des  scemschen 
Theaters,  p.  31. 

In  der  Mitte  des  Hintergrundes  befand  sich  aber  noch  eine  durch 
einen  Vorhang  zuschliessende  Mittelbuhne,  welche  vortrefflich  zu  verwen- 
den  war  und  dmch  deren  geringe  Veranderungen  wie  auch  diu'ch  das 
Schliessen  und  Oeffnen  derselben  auch  der  Phantasie  der  Zuschauer  bei 
dem  so  haufigen  Scenenwechsel  auf  die  leichteste  Art  uachhalf. 

In  other  words,  both  Lawrenee  and  Genee  think  it  possible  that 
the  alcove  rear  stage  existed.  The  plays  offer  the  following 
evidence,  if  not  directly  for  this  alcove  stage,  at  least  against  the 
corridor  stage  or  the  stage  of  Brodmeier.  I  use  again  Brodmeier's 
own  tests  and  principles,  citing  clashes  which  prove  them  self- 
contradictory  : 

Property  scenes  are  supposed  to  be  in  scenes;  so  are  door 
scenes ;  yet  the  following  show  clashes  of  door  scenes  and  property 
scenes ;  in  some  cases  a  curtain  being  directly  mentioned : 

Antonio^ s  JRevenge  (1602,  Paul's),  II,  1.  The  act  opens  in  a 
church;  a  coffin  is  brought  in,  and  left  on  the  stage,  being  used 
again  in  Act  III. 

"The  coffin  [is]  set  down;  helm,  sword,  and  streamers  hung  up, 
placed  by  the  Herald."  (Act  II).  In  Act  III  a  page  says  to  Antonio, 
visiting  the  church:  "Those  streamers  bear  his  [Andrugio's,  Antonio's 
father]  arms."     Antonio  says:  "Set  tapers  to  the  tomb."     Soon  Andru- 

pre-Restoration  conditions),  describes  it  (p.  408)  as  one  of  the  public  houses,  which  were  only 
partially  roofed,  and  which  therefore  needed  no  artificial  illumination.  I  have  already 
shown  that  it  once  had  three  doors,  though  the  picture  hardly  allows  room  for  more  than 
one.  The  theater  must  therefore  have  been  rebuilt  at  some  time  in  its  history,  and  the 
picture  of  1656  can  be  of  little  authority  for  the  period  before  1603. 

593 


14  Geoege  F.  Reynolds 

gio's  ghost  rises,  saying:  "Lo,  the  ghost  of  old  Andrugio,  Forsakes  his 
coiBn." 

Without  the  actors  leaving  the  stage,  the  scene  changes  to  the 
space  before  the  palace  where  the  body  of  Feliche  is  hung  up, 
and  the  scene  closes  with  the  direction:  "  Exeunt  at  several  doors." 
Unless  one  would  accept  the  idea  that  the  tomb  remained  in  plain 
sight  even  during  the  last  part  ef  the  scene,  one  must  suppose 
the  curtain  to  have  been  closed  with  the  change  of  scene,  but 
that  it  did  conceal  the  doors. 

The  Wisdom  of  Dr.  Dodypoll  (1600,  Paul's),  III,  3.  The 
scene  is  described  as  a  valley  near  a  green  hill.  Fairies  bring  in 
a  banquet,  and  a  peasant,  spying  a  cup,  steals  it  and  disappears. 
"Enter  the  spirit  with  banquetting  stuffe,  and  missing  the  pesant, 
lookes  up  and  downe  for  him;  the  rest  wondering  at  him;  to 
them  enters  the  Enchanter."  To  this  company  Lassingbergh  and 
Lucilia  enter,  and  the  Enchanter  binds  him  by  magic.  No  exeunt 
direction  closes  the  scene,  and  the  fourth  scene,  located  in  another 
place,  opens  with  the  direction:  "Enter  Alberdure  at  one  doore, 
and  meetes  with  the  Pesant  at  the  other  doore."  The  succeeding 
(fifth )  scene  is  again  at  the  place  of  the  third  scene,  beginning  with : 
"Enter  Enchanter,  leading  Luc.  and  Lass,  bound  by  spirits;  who 
being  laid  down  on  a  green  banck,  the  spirits  fetch  in  a  banquet." 
The  only  explanation  at  all  consistent  with  Brodmeier's  theories 
would  be  to  place  the  green  bank  and  the  banquet  on  the  rear 
stage:  the  curtain  would  close  at  tbe  end  of  sc.  3,  and  open  again 
for  sc.  5,  but  the  doors  would  necessarily  be  outside  the  curtain. 
In  any  other  way  a  clash  would  result. 

Alchemist  (1610,  Kings'),  V,  1,  plainly  uses  one  door  at  least 
for  the  entrance  to  Lovewit's  house.  Scene  2  is  within  the  house 
and  uses  chests.  A  clash  will  therefore  result  if  the  doors  are 
concealed  by  the  curtain. 

Captain  Thomas  Stukeley  (1605;  dated  by  Simpson,  1598), 
11.  120-335  are  before  an  inn,  on  the  way  to  Tom's  chamber,  and 
finally  within  the  chamber,  which  is  entered  by  a  door.  The  next 
scene  is  in  an  entirely  different  place  and  begins  with:  "Enter  at 
one  door  Cross  the  Mercer,  at  another  Spring  the  Vintner." 

Poetaster  (acted  1601,  Chapel  Children),  IV,  2,  is  short, 
594 


Some  Principles  of  Elizabethan  Staging  15 

with  hardly  fifty  lines.  At  the  beginning  Lupus  says:  "Shut  the 
door,  lictor;"  but  sc.  3  opens  at  a  feast,  and  the  stage  is  set  with 
chairs  or  stools,  for  Ovid  says:  "Gods  and  goddesses,  take  your 
several  seats."  Again  the  most  obvious  staging  which  will  avoid 
a  clash  is  to  place  sc.  3  on  the  rear  stage  and  to  suppose  that  the 
door  was  not  concealed  by  the  curtains. 

Wonder  of  Women  (1606,  Blackfriars),  III,  1 ;  near  the  end  has 
a  direction:  "They  lay  Vangue  in  Syphax'  bed  and  draw  the  cur- 
tains." Act  III,  sc.  2,  begins:  "Enter  Scipio  and  Lselius,  with  the 
complements  of  Roman  Generals  before  them.  At  the  other  door, 
Massinissa  and  Jugurth."  Even  if  the  curtains  mentioned  are 
those  of  the  bed,  the  bed,  according  to  Brodmeier,  would  be  on 
the  rear  stage  and  a  clash  would  result  in  sc.  2 — unless,  of  course, 
the  doors  were  outside  the  curtain. 

Timon  of  Athens  (written  in  1607?;  1623),  V,  1,  2,  3,  4:  Scene 
1  is  before  Timon's  cave,  which  Brodmeier  places  in  the  rear 
stage  (p.  19).  sc.  2  is  probably  before  the  walls  of  Athens,  as  the 
Globe  direction  says,  though  there  is  nothing  to  set  the  scene 
definitely  but  the  third  Senator's  "in,  and  prepare."  Scene  3, 
however,  is,  as  plainly  as  any  scene  can  be,  again,  as  in  sc.  1,  the 
woods  before  Timon's  cave;  moreover,  something  now  stands  for 
Timon's  tomb.  Brodmeier  says  this  scene  is  on  the  front  stage,  but 
only,  it  seems,  because  he  would  otherwise  be  forced  into  a  clash 
with  sc.  4,  which  is  again  before  the  walls  of  Athens  and  alludes 
to  the  "gates,"  that  is  the  doors.  Yet,  if  the  doors  and  balcony 
were  outside  the  curtain,  all  would  be  simple  —  Timon's  cave,  the 
woods,  and  the  tomb  could  be  on  the  rear  stage,  sc.  1  and  3  would 
be  in,  the  other  two  be  out. 

Other  examples  are  not  difiicult  to  cite:  In  Shakespeare,  for 
example,  Cymheline,  II,  2,  3;  Taming  of  the  Shreio,  V.  1,  2; 
Richard  II,  1,  3,  4;  all  of  which  Brodmeier  explains  by  more  or 
less  acceptable  split  scenes;'  but  these  are  enough  to  show  the 
nature  of  the  illustrations  possible.  I  have  chosen  examples 
which  represent  leading  theaters — Paul's,  the  Rose,  Blackfriars, 
and  the  Globe;  these  plays  suggest  that  in  each  the  doors  were 
not  concealed  by  the  curtain. 

1  See  infra,  p.  31,  for  explanation  of  this  means  of  avoiding  clasties. 

595 


16  George  F.  Reynolds 

Scenes  tending  to  show  the  same  stage  construction  are  found 
in  several  other  plays,  but  the  evidence  is  not  directly  applicable. 
The  situations  are  generally  of  this  nature:  One  or  more  char- 
acters enter,  and  almost  as  soon  as  they  are  on  the  stage  the 
curtains  open,  displaying  something  surprising  or  at  least 
unknown  to  them.  Or  sometimes,  near  the  end  of  a  scene,  the 
curtains  close  and  characters  remaining  on  the  stage  exeunt,  but, 
according  to  the  intention  of-  the  dramatist,  not  through  the 
curtained  space.  In  many  cases  beds  are  in  use,  so  that  bed 
curtains  may  be  meant  by  the  word  "curtains"  or  "discover"  of 
the  directions;  but  since  it  can  certainly  be  shown  that  stage 
curtains  existed  in  every  important  theater,  it  is  usually  more 
reasonable  to  suppose  that  it  is  the  stage  curtains  which  are 
referred  to. 

The  Woman  in  the  Moon  (published  1597;  written.  Bond, 
1591-93,  Paul's),  I,  1:  Four  Shepherds  ask  Nature  for  a  female; 
she  promises  them  one  and  they  exeunt,  after  which  the  maidens 
"draw  the  Curtins  from  before  Nature's  shop,  where  stands  an 
Image  clad,  and  some  vnclad,  they  bring  forth  the  cloathed 
image,"  and  it  becomes  Pandora.  The  shepherds  could  hardly 
have  gone  out  through  the  "shop"  curtain. 

Henry  FJ/ J  (acted  1613),  II,  2:  The  Lord  Chamberlain  is 
reading  a  letter  when  Suffolk  and  Norfolk  come  to  him.  They 
ask:  "How  is  the  king  imployed  ?"  The  Chamberlain  replies: 
"I  left  him  priuate,  Full  of  sad  thoughts  and  troubles."  Norfolk 
suggests  that  they  go  in  to  the  king,  but  the  Chamberlain  refuses. 
"Exit  Lord  Chamberlaine,  and  the  King  drawes  the  Curtaine  and 
sits  reading  pensiuely."  Suffolk  speaks  and  the  king,  disturbed, 
starts  up  angrily.  Brodmeier  (p.  57),  of  course,  has  the  scene 
begin  on  the  front  stage,  but,  since  he  supposes  all  the  doors  to  be 
behind  the  curtain,  is  forced  to  have  the  nobles  enter  and  Lord 
Chamerlain  depart  through  the  curtain,  the  latter  action  being 
especially  incongruous.  If  the  curtain  does  not  hide  the  doors, 
the  Lord  Chamberlain  enters  through  the  curtain,  the  nobles 
come  in  through  one  door,  he  exits  in  the  same  way,  and  all  is 
simple,  fitting,  and  clear. 

Sir  Giles  Goosecap  (1660,  Chapel;  acted,  Fleay,  1601),  V,  2: 
596 


Some  Principles  of  Elizabethan  Staging  17 

The  plan  is  to  bring  certain  people  near  to  the  chamber  of 
Clarence,  who  is  feigning  sickness,  so  he  may  get  conversation 
with  Eugenia,  whom  he  loves.  Clarence  and  the  Doctor  enter; 
others  come  a  little  later  and  talk  of  Clarence,  as  if  he  were  in 
another  room;  Clarence  does  not  see  them.  All  but  Clarence 
exeunt;  he  "drawes  the  Curtaines  and  sits  within  them"  (p.  84). 
Eugenia  immediately  enters  with  two  friends,  and  these  three 
talk  for  two  pages  before  they  rouse  Clarence.  The  staging  with 
the  alcove  stage  is  simple  and  consistent ;  with  the  doors  concealed 
by  the  curtain  it  could  not  but  be  confused  and  utterly  unrealistic, 
for  the  visitors  would  have  entered  through  the  very  space  in 
which  he  was  concealed. 

Downfall  of  Eobert,  Earl  of  Huntington  (1601,  Admiral's), 
III,  4:  An  old  man,  Marian's  father,  enters  disguised,  talking  of 
how  he  is  coming  to  see  his  daughter.  Then  "Curtains  open: 
Robin  Hood  sleeps  on  a  green  bank,  and  Marian  strewing  flowers 
on  him."  Marian  greets  her  father  kindly,  and  Friar  Tuck  and 
Jenny,  dressed  like  peddlers,  enter.  Still  more  come  in,  one  of 
the  last  comers  saying  to  Tuck,  "Yonder  is  the  bower,"  and  hides 
to  wait  for  developments.  More  striking  than  the  inconsistency 
of  the  old  man's  coming  in  through  the  curtain,  which  was  so 
soon  to  open  and  display  Robin  Hood  to  him,  is  the  improba- 
bility of  speaking  of  the  rear  stage  as  "yonder,"  if  one  had  just 
entered  it,  as  the  speaker  would  have  done  had  the  bower  been 
the  rear  stage,  the  easiest  explanation,  and  the  doors  in  its  back 
wall,  as  Brodmeier  would  have  them. 

Antonio's  Revenge  (1602,  Paul's),  III,  8:  Maria,  wife  of  the 
murdered  Andrugio,  is  preparing  for  bed.  Scene  1  was  in  a 
church  about  a  coffin.  Presumably  the  scene  was  therefore  the 
rear  stage,  but  now  in  the  beginning  of  sc.  2,  it  is  on  the  front 
stage.  While  she  is  thus  employed,  the  settings  on  the  rear  stage 
are  being  changed,  for,  1.  64,  "Maria  draweth  the  curtain:  and  the 
ghost  of  Andrugio  is  displayed,  sitting  on  the  bed."  The  ghost 
tells  her  how  treacherously  he  has  been  treated,  but  finally  says: 
"Sleep  thou  in  rest,  lo,  here  I  close  thy  couch."  Then  the  direc- 
tion says:  "Exit  Maria  to  her  bed,  Andrugio  drawing  the 
curtains,"     He  speaks  five  more  lines  and  then  exits.     This,  of 

597 


18  George  F.  Keynolds 

course,  may  refer  to  the  bed  curtains,  but,  if  it  does,  the  first  part 
of  the  scene  must  be  on  the  rear  stage,  and  the  clash  of  two 
property  scenes  would  have  to  be  explained;  for  the  alternation 
theory  a  much  more  difficult  matter.' 

Other  examples  such  as  these  are  numerous.  Among  those 
which  may  be  noted  are  Humour  Out  of  Breath  (1608,  Revels), 
III,  4;  Life  and  Death  of  Thomas,  Lord  Cromwell  (1602, 
Chamberlain's)  III,  2;-  II  Henry  IV  (1594;  Chamberlain's), 
III,  2,  3;  Old  Fortunatus  (1600,  Admiral's),  II,  1;  I  Honest 
Whore  (1604),  I,  3,  in  all  of  which  the  incongruity  of  exit  or 
entrance  through  the  rear  stage  is  marked. 

Situations  like  these,  of  course,  might  not  seem  incongruous 
to  an  Elizabethan.  If  he  were  accustomed  to  them,  he  would 
receive  them  as  he  would  any  inherently  impossible  dramatic 
convention — dramatic  time,  for  example.  In  that  case  the  illus- 
trations cited  merely  call  attention  to  an,  as  yet,  unnoticed  stage 
custom.  But  to  arrange  the  stage  so  as  to  avoid  this  incongruity 
is  so  easy  that  it  seems  fair  to  admit  these  cases  as  evidence  of 
the  alcove  rear  stage.  It  is  true  that  two  other  explanations  have 
been  suggested — one  by  Archer,^  who  would  have  characters  in 
such  scenes  come  around  the  pillars,  as  the  messenger  seems  to 
have  done  in  the  Swan  picture;  the  other  by  Bang,*  who  would 
divide  the  rear  stage  into  two  parts.  Both  are  intended  to 
explain  how  such  scenes  could  be  arranged  on  a  stage  similar  to 
the  Swan's,  and  therefore  are  less  to  be  regarded.  Archer's 
explanation  is  perhaps  true  for  such  a  theater,  but  would  not 
apply  to  the  other  theaters  of  which  pictures  exist.  Bang's  seems 
to  me  quite  impossible.     Actions  on  such  a  rear  stage  as  he  pre- 

iTo  be  sure  "curtain"  is  used  in  the  first  direction;  "curtains"  in  the  second;  but  I 
know  no  reason  for  thinking  them  different.  The  stage  directions,  carelessly  written  and 
carelessly  printed,  are  not  to  be  too  curiously  or  minutely  examined.  If  there  were  a  differ- 
ence, "curtains"  in  the  above  direction  would  mean  the  bed  curtain,  and  "curtain,"  the 
stage  curtain.  But  in  the  same  play  near  the  end  is  the  direction,  "The curtains  are  drawn, 
Piero  departeth,"  where  there  is  no  doubt  of  the  plural  form,  and  no  possibility  that  bed 
curtains  are  referred  to. 

2  This  is  the  scene  which  Bang,  with  amusing  exclamation,  cites  as  showing  how  stu- 
dents have  completely  forgotten  the  necessity  of  providing  for  entrance  to  the  front  stage 
(Jahrbuch,  Vol.  XL,  pp.  223-25).  Keller's  answer  (ibid.,  pp.  225-27)  is  unsatisfactory ;  there 
is  absolutely  no  authority  for  assuming  the  balcony,  as  he  does  in  such  instances,  and  in 
most  cases  it  will  not  suit  the  directions  at  all. 

«  Universal  Review,  June  15, 1888,  pp.  281-88.  *  Jahrbuch,  Vol.  XL,  pp.  223-25. 

598 


Some  Principles  of  Elizabethan  Staging  19 

sents — one  divided  by  curtains  into  two  narrow  deep  parts — 
would  be  almost,  if  not  entirely,  invisible  to  a  large  part  of  the 
audience  in  the  old  circular  theaters,  Brodmeier  attempts  no 
special  explanation  of  such  scenes. 

If  the  alcove  stage  be  granted,  directions  and  situations  in  the 
plays  are  explained  which  are  otherwise  puzzling.  The  direction 
in  Alphonsus  (1599),  1.  1255  is  explained:  "Let  there  be  a 
brazen  Head  set  in  the  middle  of  the  place  behind  the  stage,  out 
of  the  which  cast  flames  of  fire,  drums  rumble  within;  enter  two 
priests."  The  order  of  directions  in  Friar  Bacon  and  Friar 
Bungay  (1594,  Queen's),  1.  1890,  which  Grosart  thinks  should 
perhaps  be  changed,  becomes  exactly  applicable:  "Enter  two 
Schollers,  sonnes  to  Lambert  and  Serlsby.  Knocke."  The 
directions  in  What  You  Will  (1607)  become  intelligible.  II,  I: 
The  scene  is  Laverdure's  bedroom.  "One  knocks:  Laverdure 
draws  the  curtains,  sitting  on  his  bed,  apparelling  himself;  his 
trunk  of  apparel  standing  by  him,"  the  last  showing  that  a 
stage  curtain  was  probably  used,  II,  2:  "Enter  a  schoolmaster, 
draws  the  curtains  behind,  with  Battus,  Nous,  Slip,  Nathaniel, 
and  Holofernes  Pippo,  schoolboys,  sitting,  with  books  in  their 
hands."  What  is  the  force  of  "behind"?  As  the  scene  is  too 
large  to  stage  it  in  Brodmeier's  "fourth"  stage,  the  curtain 
"behind"  is  not  one  over  a  single  door.  The  directions  exactly 
fit  the  situation  if  the  schoolmaster  had  entered  through  a  door 
on  either  side  the  alcove,  and  had  then  drawn  open  the  stage  cur- 
tain behind  him.  Eastward  Ho  ( 1605,  Blackfriars) ,  I,  1 :  "  Enter 
Master  Touchstone  and  Quicksilver  at  several  doors;  ....  At 
the  middle  door,  enter  Goldiug,  discovering  a  goldsmith's  shop, 
and  walking  short  turns  before  it."  This  direction,  one  of  the 
most  confusing  of  all,  becomes  reasonably  plain  with  the  alcove 
stage  and  suggests  several  interesting  points.  It  certainly  sounds 
as  if  the  alcove  stage  was  arranged  as  a  shop,  and  that  Golding, 
coming  through  the  middle  door,  drew  back  the  curtain  discover- 
ing the  shop  and  walked  before  it.  The  direction  from  Woman 
171  the  Moon,  already  quoted,  is  very  similar.  The  shop  of 
Alexander  and  Campaspe  (1584,  her  Majesty's  Children  and 
Paul's)   is  admirably  explained    by  the   alcove  stage;   so  is  the 


20  George  F.  Reynolds 

pavilion  of  David  and  Bethsabe  (1599),  III,  2;  and  the  shop  of 
Edward  IV  (1600),  p.  63.' 

The  direction  of  Eastward  Ho,  in  saying  "the  middle  door," 
suggests  another  consideration.  We  have  assumed  that  the  alcove 
stage  was  in  the  middle  between  the  two  other  doors ;  the  middle 
door  is  probably  then  the  means  of  entrance  to  the  alcove  from 
the  dressing-room.  Perhaps  the  fact  that  it  was  usually  concealed 
by  the  curtain  will  explain  the  directions  which  say,  "Enter  at 
one  door  ....  the  other,"  the  dramatist  forgetting  for  the 
moment  the  existence  of  the  third  entrance,  which  was  usually 
concealed  by  the  stage  curtain." 

These  latter  illustrations  are,  however,  only  of  secondary 
importance.  The  two  great  objections  to  the  rear  stage  of  Brod- 
meier  are  the  fact  that  a  large  number  of  plays  show  clashes  of 
door  scenes  with  property  and  curtain  scenes,  and  that  in  many 
scenes,  if  all  the  doors  were  concealed  by  the  curtain,  the  action 
on  the  stage  would  often  contradict  the  plain  meaning  of  the 
lines.  A  third  argument,  hardly  capable  of  direct  proof,  yet 
certainly  to  be  carefully  considered,  is  the  importance  of  the 
doors  themselves.  They  were  valuable  scenic  details;  when  the 
balcony  is  used  as  the  walls  of  a  city,  they  are  nearly  always 
plainly  in  sight  as  the  gates;  when  the  balcony  is  the  second 
story  of  a  house,  they  are  its  street  doors.  But,  more  than  this, 
they  had  what  may  be  called  a  symbolic  value.  By  the  use  of 
different  doors  the  dramatists  were  able  to  show  at  once  that 
characters  entering  at  the  same  time  came  from  two  or  three 
different  places.     By  the  use  of  scene-boards^  the  visible  doors 

1  Sometimes,  however,  real  separate  structures  were  used  on  the  stage  for  shops,  etc. 
though  I  believe  the  subject  of  such  properties  has  never  been  investigated.  Their  use  is 
clear  in  Histrio-mastix  (written  1599?;  published  1610):  "Enter  Lyon-rash  to  Fourchier 
sitting  in  his  study  at  one  end  of  the  stage :  At  the  other  end  enter  Vourcher  to  Velure  in 
his  shop."  Here  there  should  be  two  doors  — one  for  Lyon-rash,  the  other  for  Vourcher. 
The  study  and  the  shop  can  hardly  be  the  doors:  they  cannot  be  the  rear  stage,  but  they 
must  be  on  the  rear  stage  so  their  occupants  can  be  discovered.  Other  plays  probably  show- 
ing the  use  of  structures  are  Faery  Pastoral,  Bartholomew  Fair,  and  Arden  of  Feversham. 
This  is  a  subject  to  which  I  hope  to  return  at  some  future  date. 

2  Perhaps  the  direction  means  rather  that  the  opening  of  the  middle  door  discovered 
the  shop.  Parallel  cases,  where  doors  seem  used  when  one  might  expect  curtains,  are  the 
non-Shakespearean  Richard  II  (1591-96),  V,  1,  and  the  Trial  of  Chivalry  (1605),  II,  3.  It  is 
conceivable  that  the  alcove  was  closed,  not  only  by  the  curtains,  but  also  by  large  doors; 
but  more  probably  common  doors  are  here  referred  to. 

3  The  existence  of  such  boards  has  been  denied,  but  always  on  theoretical  grounds,  not 
by  any  specific  facts.    So  Matthews  ("  Conventions  of  the  Drama,"  pp.  257,  258,  in  The  His- 

600 


Some  Principles  of  Elizabethan  Staging  21 

became  even  more  useful,  for  the  boards  showed  from  what  pre- 
cise place  each  party  came.  This  is  made  absolutely  clear  in  the 
directions  of  The  Cuckqueens'  and  Cuckolds'  Errants  (written 
1601,  Paul's).  The  general  direction  reads:  "Harwich.  In 
midde  of  the  Stage  Colchester  with  Image  of  Tarlton,  Signe  and 
Ghirlond  Vnder  him  also.  The  Raungers  Lodge,  Maldon,  A 
Ladder  of  Roapes  trussed  vp  neare  Harwich.  Highest  and  aloft 
the  Title.     The  Cuckqueanes  and   Cuckolds  Errants.     A  Long 

torical  Novel,  1901),  says:  "Thore  was  no  need  of  the  alleged  placards  declaring  the  scene; 
this  would  have  been  an  intrusion  in  the  eyes  of  Marlowe's  contemporaries,  who  never 
cared  where  the  place  was  so  long  as  the  play  was  interesting.  These  supposed  signs  are 
no  more  than  the  Victorian  explanation  of  a  need  not  felt  by  the  Elizabethans ;  and  they 
are  not  warranted  by  the  passage  of  Sidney  which  is  cited  in  support.  So  also  Appleton 
Morgan  (Introduction,  Titus  Andronicus,  "Bankside  Shakespeare,"  pp.  31,  32) :  "But  the 
days  when  to  represent  change  of  scene,  placards  with  'Africa,'  'Vienna,'  'Paris,'  'Padua,' 
etc.,  written  upon  them  were  displayed  must  have  been  about  over  when  Shakespeare  began 
his  career.  The  realism  which  began  to  wheel  in  a  four  post  bedstead  to  make  a  bed  room 
scene  ....  certainly  would  have  demanded  the  retirement  of  these  placards."  (See  also 
Beandl,  Introduction,  Vol.  I,  p.  27,  and  Genee,  Jahrbtich,  Vol.  XXVI,  pp.  138,  139).  But  the 
play  mentioned  in  the  text  is  certainly  contemporaneous  with  Shakespeare,  and  was  pre- 
sumably played  at  Paul's  playhouse,  by  no  means  a  poorly  furnished  theater.  It  is  true 
that  the  line  in  the  Spanish  Tragedy,  "Hang  up  the  title,  our  scene  is  Rhodes"  (IV,  3,  1.  16), 
does  not,  as  Beandl  {loc.  cit.,  p.  28),  truly  observes,  refer  to  scene-boards,  but  to  the  title- 
boards.  These  title-boards,  or  their  substitutes,  were  used  as  early  as  1528  when  the  Paul's 
boys  gave  Phormio  for  Cardinal  Wolsey.  The  secretary  of  the  Venetian  ambassador  wrote  : 
"The  hall  in  which  they  dined,  and  where  the  comedy  was  performed,  had  a  large  garland 
of  box  in  front,  in  the  center  of  which  was  inscribed  in  gilt  letters,  'Terentii  Phormio.'  " 
Venetian  State  Papers,  Jan.  8,  1528.  These  title-boards  are  perhaps  referred  to  in  the 
accounts  of  the  Revels :  "  Syse,  cullers,  pottes,  Assydewe,  golde,  and  silver  used  and  occu- 
pied for  the  Garnyshinge  of  xiiij  titles,"  etc.  (1579,  p.  162,  when  ten  plays  were  given) ; 
"  Painting  of  ix  titles  with  compartmentes,  xvs "  (1580-81,  p.  169,  when  seven  plays  were 
given).  The  familiar  passage  in  the  Induction  to  Wily  Beguiled  (Fleay  dates  15%-97 ; 
published  1606)  establishes  the  use  of  these  title-boards  beyond  question,  as  do  also  the 
general  directions  of  Percy's  plays. 

But  scene-boards  existed  also,  as  the  directions  quoted  in  the  text  show.  They  were 
not,  however,  such  primitive  things  as  popular  fancy  represents  them.  The  old  stage  never 
saw  labels  like  "This  is  a  street,"  "This  is  a  house,"  and  seldom  such  as  "This  is  a  tree," 
or  "A  mount."  There  is,  so  far  as  I  am  aware,  but  one  existing  direction  which  would  go  to 
prove  such  labels,  that  in  Peecy's  Faery  Pastoral  (written  1603,  for  Paul's),  which,  after 
describing  the  properties  and  furnishings  of  the  stage,  goes  on  to  say,  "  Now  if  so  be  that  the 
Properties  of  any  of  These,  that  be  outward,  will  not  serue  the  turne  by  reason  of  concurse 
of  the  People  on  the  Stage,  Then  you  may  omit  the  sayd  Properties  which  be  outward  and 
supplye  their  Places  with  their  Nuncupations  onely  in  Text  Letters.  Thus  for  some."  Even 
here  the  labels  are  only  a  makeshift,  and  the  real  properties  are  assumed  as  usual.  The 
scene-boards  were  not  to  take  the  place  of  furnishings  so  much  as  the  place  of  programs.  It 
would  often  be  difficult  even  now  to  indicate  by  scenery  whether  the  place  of  any  particular 
scene  were  New  York,  London,  or  Paris,  and  this  difficulty  the  scene-boards  did  away  with. 
JussEEAND  {Shakespeare  in  France,  p.  68)  shows  that  early  artists  also  felt  the  necessity  of 
labels,  reproducing  a  picture  of  Benozzo  Gozzoli's  where  such  a  label  is  used,  and  {Furni- 
vail  Memorial,  p.  186)  quotes  a  prologue  from  an  old  French  play,  to  the  effect,  that  as  for 
the  place  names 

"  vous  les  povez  cognoistre 
Par  I'escritel  que  dessus  voyez  estre." 
That  they  existed  in  Elizabethan  times,  the  citations  in  the  text  show. 

601 


22  George  F.  Reynolds 

Fourme."  The  play  makes  this  confusing  direction  plain.  Over 
one  door  was  the  word  "Harwich;"  over  another,  "Maldon;" 
over  the  middle  entrance,  "Colchester,"  with  the  sign  of  the  inn 
which  the  rear  stage  seems  to  have  represented,  for  in  Act  V  two 
maids  in  this  inn  sit  on  the  "long  fourme"  and  tell  each  other 
dreams.  The  directions  are  all  in  the  past  tense,  as  if  the  author 
were  describing  an  actual  performance.  Act  I,  scene  1,  begins, 
"They  entered  from  Maldon,"  and  the  scene  all  occurs  in  that 
place.  Scene  2  says,  "They  [two  rogues]  mett  from  Maldon  and 
Harwich,"  and  one  says  to  the  other,  "Thou  beest  welcome  to 
Colchester."  Scene  3  is  in  the  same  place;  scene  4,  in  Harwich, 
beginning,  "They  entered  from  Harwich  all"  (p.  17),  and  con- 
taining an  allusion  to  "that  Ladder,  hong."  The  play  continues 
with  this  same  sort  of  directions  until  the  end,  the  place  of  action 
being  consistent  with  the  place  designated  by  the  sign  above  the 
doors  through  which  the  characters  enter.  Sidney's  famous 
remark  in  the  Apology  for  Poetry  (1581)  illustrates  the  same 
custom,  again  connecting  the  scene-boards  with  the  doors:  "What 
childe  is  there,  that  comming  to  a  Play,  and  seeing  Thebes  written 
in  great  letters  vpon  an  olde  doore,  doth  beleeue  that  it  is  Thebesf'' 
(p.  52),  and  (p.  63),  "You  shall  haue  Asia  of  the  one  side  and 
Affrick  of  the  other,  and  so  many  other  vnder-kingdoms,  that 
the  Player,  when  he  commeth  in,  must  euer  begin  with  telling 
where  he  is  or  els  the  tale  will  not  be  conceiued;" — obviously 
there  are  limitations  to  the  number  of  scene-boards.  Jasper 
Mayne  in  his  poem  on  Jonson,  in  Jonsomis  Vwhius  (1638),  says 
that  in  Jonson's  plays  "The  stage  was  still  a  stage,  two  entrances 
Were  not  two  parts  o'  the  world,  disjoin'd  by  seas."  So  Envy, 
in  the  Prologue  to  the  Poetaster  (1601,  Chapel  Children),  comes 
expecting  to  find  the  scene  of  the  play  laid  in  London.  Instead 
she  discovers,  obviously  from  some  visible  source,  that  it  is  Rome, 
saying 

The  scene  is,  ha  ! 

Rome?  Rome?  and  Rome?     Crack,  eye  strings,  and  your  balls 

Drop  into  earth. 

The  triple  mention,  in  view  of  these  other  references,  suggests 
that  she  is  reading  scene-boards  over  each  door,  and  from  their 

602 


Some  Principles  of  Elizabethan  Staging  23 

uniformity  discovers  that  the  scene  throughout  the  play  is  to  be  in 
one  city.  In  Eastward  Ho  (1605,  Blackfriars),  IV,  1,  "Enter 
Slitgut  with  a  pair  of  ox-horns,  discovering  Cuckhold's  Haven 
above,"  certainly  alludes  to  a  similar  thing,  for  that  is  where  the 
scene  is  located.  Perhaps  such  a  direction  as  "Enter  two  Car- 
penters under  Newgate"  of  Warning  for  Fair  Women  (1598, 
Chamberlain's),  II,  1.  1510,  is  an  evidence  of  this  same  custom. 
This  would  be  perhaps  the  easiest  way  to  explain  11.  690-870, 
and  1913-52,  Friar  Bacon  and  Friar  Bungay  (1594,  Queen's), 
in  which  characters  on  one  part  of  the  stage  are  able  by  looking 
through  a  glass  to  see  events  supposed  to  be  occurring  miles  away, 
but  which  are  really  acted  on  the  stage  at  the  same  time.  Com- 
mon Conditions  {pa.  1576)  and  Two  Lamentable  Tragedies 
(1601)  are  two  other  plays  which  suggest  some  such  convention- 
alized use  of  the  doors  with  scene-boards.  Jocasta  also  (Grey's 
Inn,  1566)  perhaps  used  them.  Neglecting,  however,  these  few 
less  certain  illustrations,  the  unquestioned  ones  show  clearly  that 
this  custom  of  scene-boards  prevailed  at  the  beginning  of  the 
seventeenth  century.  They  do  not,  of  course,  show  how  general 
it  was,  but  there  is  nothing  in  the  directions  to  indicate  that  it 
was  anything  unusual,  and  Sidney's  and  Mayne's  reference  would 
imply  that  it  was  widely  practiced  at  two  widely  different  dates. 
All  connect  it  closely  with  the  doors  also,  which,  if  this  was  an 
established  custom,  must  therefore  have  been  in  sight  most  if  not 
all  of  the  time. 

The  importance  of  the  doors  from  this  and  other  causes  men- 
tioned, and  the  necessity  that  they  be  in  sight  throughout  the 
play,  the  clashes  resulting  from  supposing  them  only  on  the  rear 
stage,  the  incongruous  situations  arising  if  all  exits  from  the 
front  stage  were  made  through  the  curtained  space,  compel  the 
opinion  that  in  some  theaters  at  least  the  doors  were  not  hidden 
by  the  curtain.  I  would  not  claim  but  one  form  of  theater.  The 
Swan  could  not  have  had  an  alcove  stage;  the  Red  Bull  picture 
shows  no  alcove  stage ;  the  Roxana  and  Messallina  pictures,  though 
they  might  be  construed  to  do  so,  perhaps  do  not.  But,  in  view 
of  the  evidence  of  the  plays,  on  the  one  hand,  and,  on  the  other, 
of  the  lateness   of  date  of  the  three  pictures,  and    the  general 


24  Geokge  F.  Reynolds 

inapplicability  of  the  Swan  picture,  it  does  not  seem  too  much  of 
an  assumption  to  admit  the  alcove  stage  as  one  of  the  possible 
forms,  if  not  as  the  most  general  form  of  stage  construction. 

Probably  Brodmeier  would  object  that  rear-stage  scenes,  and 
"fourth"  stage  scenes  were  being  confused,  and  that  the  alcove 
stage  would  not  be  large  enough  for  all  the  rear-stage  scenes  of 
the  plays.  On  the  contrary,  the  curtained  space  of  the  Roxana, 
the  Messallina,  or  the  Red  Bull  picture,  even  if  very  shallow, 
would  be  large  enough  for  practically  every  scene  certainly 
played  on  the  rear  stage.  The  plays  do  demand  a  rear  stage  of 
considerable  size;  the  following  directions  prove  that:  "An 
arras  is  drawne,  and  behinde  it  (as  in  sessions)  sit  the  L.  Maior, 
Justice  Suresbie,  and  other  Justices ;  Sheriffe  Moore  and  the  other 
Sherife  sitting  by.  Smart  is  the  plaintife,  Lifter  the  prisoner  at 
the  barre"  (p.  6,  Sir  Thomas  More,  ca  1590).  "Winchester, 
Arundel,  and  other  Lords,  discovered;  the  Lord  Treasurer  kneel- 
ing at  the  council-table"  (p.  188,  Sir  Thomas  Wyatt,  1607, 
Queen's).  In  II  Tamhurlaine,  II,  4  (1690,  Admiral's) ,  a  bed  and 
eleven  people  occupied  the  rear  stage,  and  in  LusVs  Dominion 
(1657,  but  certainly  an  early  play),  I,  3,  at  least  seven  people 
are  discovered.  More  instances  might  be  cited,  but  I  know  of 
no  specific  direction  for  more  people  than  this  to  be  discovered  on 
the  rear  stage.  But  because  the  rear  stage  was  large  enough  to 
hold  eleven  people  and  a  bed  is  no  reason  for  supposing  a  larger 
stage  than  that  behind  the  curtains  of  the  pictures.  Brodmeier's 
rear-stage  scenes  may  require  a  larger  stage,  but  the  proof  that 
they  were  rear-stage  scenes  is  because,  on  account  of  them,  the 
rear  stage  must  have  been  large.  Such  argument  in  a  circle 
proves  nothing.  Even  if  these  were  rear-stage  scenes,  the  rear 
stage  of  the  Messallina  or  the  Roxana  stage  would  probably 
suffice.  Brodmeier,  in  making  the  distinction  between  scenes  on 
the  Vorderhilhne  and  Hinterhilhne,  or  what  I,  in  consequence, 
have  called  out  and  in  scenes,  seems  to  have  forgotten  that  most, 
if  not  all,  Hinterbilhne  scenes  are  really  full  stage  scenes.  On 
his  stage,  especially,  no  marked  distinction  between  the  two  stages 
could  have  existed.     An  alcove  stage,  perhaps,  was  elevated  above 

604 


OF 

SoME  Principles  of  Elizabethan  Staging  25 

the  floor  of  the  rear  stage,'  but  on  the  Swan  Theater  stage,  as 
soon  as  the  imagined  curtains  are  drawn,  no  distinction  remains. 
The  alcove  stage  is  amply  sufficient  for  staging  all  the  unques- 
tioned rear-stage  scenes  of  plays  dating  between  1577  and  1603. 
It  need  not  necessarily  have  been  small.  As  has  been  pointed 
out,  it  could  in  the  Fortune  have  been  twenty  feet  long,  and  then 
have  left  ten  feet  on  either  side  for  the  doors.  In  the  Roxana 
and  Messallina  pictures  the  curtained  space  is  represented  as  at 
least  twelve  feet  wide,  and  the  Eoxana  does  not  show  the  whole 
width. ^  Brodmeier  denies  (p.  62)  that  the  curtains  of  these 
pictures  —  the  only  ones  showing  a  curtain  of  any  kind,  one 
remembers — are  true  stage  curtains,  because  the  concealed  space 
is  too  small;  but  at  the  same  time  is  forced  to  think  the  cell  of 
Prospero  in  the  Tempest  not  the  rear  stage,  because  the  rear 
stage  which  he  assumes  is  too  large  for  it  (p.  64).  The  fact  is 
that  Brodmeier,  in  increasing  the  importance  of  the  rear  stage  to/y 
fit  the  alternation  theory,  has  increased  its  size  until,  in  both 
size  and  frequency  of  use,  it  surpasses  the  front  stage.  Yet  the  i^ 
unmistakable  evidence  of  the  plays  and  the  pictures  is  that  the  i 
front,  not  the  rear  stage,  was  the  larger  and  the  more  used,  i 
Common-sense  points  to  the  same  consideration.  To  suppose,  as  : 
Brodmeier  does  (p.  8),  that  all  the  "play"  in  the  Taming  of  a 
Shreiv  was  on  the  rear  stage  is,  on  the  face  of  it,  unreasonable. 
Speech  on  the  rear  stage,  inclosed  as  he  would  have  it,  would  be 
inaudible  to  most  of  the  house,  and  action  so  far  removed  from 
the  audience,  especially  on  a  stage  whose  front  portion  was 
crowded  with  spectators,  would  be  invisible.  Instead  of  most 
actions  occurring  on  the  rear  stage,  no  matter  whether  it  were 
the  alcove  stage  or  Brodmeier's,  the  larger  number  of  scenes,  even 
when  they  began  on  the  rear  stage,  must  have  moved  down  toward 
the  front  of  the  stage,  into  the  center  of  the  theater,  close  to  the 
audience.  This  is  perhaps  one  reason  why  so  few  scenes  open  or 
close  with  "situations."     The  door  and  balcony  tests,  then,  rest 

1  This  supposition  would  explain  a  little  more  easily  than  the  balcony  Wounds  of  Civil 
War  (1394,  Admiral's),  IV,  1;  Titiis  Andronicus  (1600,  Chamberlain's  and  others),  V,  2. 

2  The  basis  for  this  estimate  is  the  height  of  the  railing,  which  could  be  scarcely  less 
than  a  foot;  nothing  is  allowed,  moreover,  for  perspective. 

605 


26  George  F.  Reynolds 

on  a  false  view  of  the  stage  and  disregard  the  plain  evidence  of 
the  plays. 

The  only  other  important  test'  which  Brodmeier  employs  is 
that  of  the  use  of  properties:  scenes  set  with  properties  are  from 
that  reason  rear  stage  scenes.^  For  this  test  there  seems  to  a 
modern  reader  to  be  more  probability  than  for  any  other.  Natu- 
rally, if  there  was  a  curtain,  the  properties  would  be  arranged 
behind  it.  This  is  especially  true  of  a  certain  class  of  properties, 
like  rocks,  shops,  trees,  woods,  and  tombs,  which  are  naturally 
immovable.  It  is  true  to  a  lesser  degree  of  beds  and  thrones. 
The  placing  of  such  furnishings  takes  time  and,  if  done  in  plain 

1  The  possibility  of  confusing  the  stage  curtain  and  bed  curtain  has  already  been  dis- 
cussed. It  should  be  noted  that  the  curtain  is  sometimes  referred  to  in  different  ways.  A 
very  common  mode  of  indicating  it  is  by  the  word  "discover":  "Winchester,  Arundel,  and 
other  Lords,  discovered;  the  Lord  Treasurer  kneeling  at  the  council-table."  (Sir  Thomas 
Wyatt,  p.  188,  1607,  Queen's).  Sometimes,  however,  doors  are  used  for  discoveries  —  as  in 
Woman  is  a  Weathercock  (pp.  49,  50,  Whitefriars,  entered  1611).  "Enter  Scudmore,  like  a 
serving  man,  with  a  letter."  "Scudmore  passeth  one  door,  and  entereth  the  other,  where 
Bellafont  sits  asleep  in  a  chair,  under  a  taffata  canopy."  Sometimes,  as  Brodmeier  sug- 
gests (p.  92),  "enter"  means  rather  a  discovered  scene.  So  in  Cymheline, II, 2  (folio),  "Enter 
Imogen  in  her  bed-,  and  a  lady,"  the  scene  seems  surely  an  in  scene,  as  does  also  Histrio- 
mastix  (1610;  dated  by  Simpson,  1599),  II,  1.  "Enter  Plenty  in  Majesty,  upon  a  Throne; 
heapes  of  gold;  Plutus,  Ceres  &  Bacchus  doing  homage;"  and  "Enters  a  Schoomaker,  sit- 
ting vpon  the  stage  at  worke;"  George  A  Greene  {-p.  993,  1599,  Sussex's;  Henslowe,  1593). 
However,  "Enter  Semele  drawne  out  in  her  bed,"  Silver  Age  (p.  154,  1613),  clearly  should  be 
a  discovery,  but  quite  as  clearly  is  not.  Sometimes,  not  always,  the  word  "  arras"  means 
the  curtain,  a  circumstance  which  makes  doubtful  another  of  Brodmeier's  tests.  In  the  fol- 
lowing direction  it  seems  very  clearly  the  curtain :  "An  arras  is  drawne,  and  behinde  it  (as 
in  sessions)  sit  the  L.  Maior,  lustice  Suresbie,  and  other  Justices;  Sheriffe  Moore  and  the 
other  Sherife  sitting  by.  Smart  is  the  plaintife.  Lifter  the  prisoner  at  the  barre "  {Sir 
Thomas  More  p.  6,  ca.  1590).  The  only  test  of  Brodmeier's  of  any  importance  not  yet  dis- 
cussed is  the  use  of  the  trap,  which  he  suggests  to  have  been  inside  the  curtain.  See  the 
following  scenes  to  show  that  it  was  not  always  so :  Looking  Glass  for  Lo^idon,  11.  558  ff. ;  The 
Wonder  of  Women,  III,  1 ;  and  the  general  direction  to  Percy's  MSS  play  Aphrodisial 
(dated  1602,  for  Paul's),  "A  Trap  door  in  the  middle  of  the  stage." 

A  test  for  the  rear  stage  not  mentioned  by  Brodmeier,  but  given  by  Kilian,  is  the 
presence  of  "  dead  "  or  "  sleeping  "  persons  in  a  scene  with  no  one  to  remove  them.  Usually 
bodies  are  removed,  something  in  directions  or  text  showing  plainly  that  this  was  done,  as 
in  Antonio's  Revenge  (1602,  Paul's),  IV,  1,  or  II  Tamburlaine  (1590,  Admiral's),  II,  3.  Even 
when  there  is  no  hint  of  removal,  but  when  other  characters  are  on  the  stage  who  probably 
could  bear  away  the  bodies,  it  is  often  best  to  suppose  that  the  specific  direction  is  merely 
forgotten.  But  in  Endimion  (1571,  Paul's),  II,  3,  it  is  much  better  for  the  play  that  Endi- 
mion  remain  asleep  upon  the  stage,  and  the  same  is  true  in  Dido  (1594,  Chapel),  II.  1,  of 
Ascanius.  In  Edward  I  (1593),  sc.  16,  there  is  no  one  left  to  remove  the  body,  and  in  II  Edward 
IV  (1600,  Derby's),  p.  155,  the  bodies  of  the  two  princes  seem  brought  on  the  stage  for  the 
sole  purpose  of  leaving  them  there. 

2  Brodmeier  says  (p.  97):  "  Biihneninventar  wird  nur  auf  die  Hinterbuhne  gebracht," 
He  does  feel  forced  to  have  (p.  14)  the  bed  of  II  Henry  IV,  IV,  4,  stand  on  the  front  stage 
for  a  little  while,  but  says:  "  Dennach  ware  dieses  die  einzige  Stelle  die  ein  grOsseres  Inven- 
tarstuck  auf  die  Vorderbuhne  bringt."  The  exception  implied  in  "  grOsseres  "  can  mean 
little,  however,  for  (p.  91)  he  supposes  Coriolanus,  I,  3,  a  rear  stage  scene  because  two  stools 
are  used  in  it. 

606 


Some  Principles  of  Elizabethan  Staging  27 

sight,  more  or  less  disturbs  dramatic  illusion.     We  modern  readers,      f 
accustomed  to  a  stage  with  an  ideal  of  complete  illusion,  naturally 
tend  to  put  such  scenes  on  the  rear  stage,  where  they  could  be 
arranged  out  of  the   sight  of  the   audience.     Yet  if  "clashes" 
mean  anything    this  supposition  is  not  true.     In  many  plays  aA 
property  scene  occurs  immediately  after  another  property  scene,  ) 
or  after  a  scene  for  some  other  reason  to  be  considered  an  in 
scene.     One   scene  or  the    other,    according    to    the   alternation 
theory,  must  therefore  have  been  played  on  the  front  stage.     Of 
course,  one  fundamental  principle  of  the  theory  is  that  no  prop- 
erty did  stand  on  the  front  stage,  but  another  is  that  the  perform- 
ance was  continuous.     One  or  the  other  must  give  way,  and  the 
falseness  of  the  first  is  shown  by  the  Swan  picture  itself,  where   ^\ 
the  bench,  the  only  property  shown  by  any  of  the  pictures,  stands,      y"^ 
not  in  the  supposed  curtain  space,  but  far  out  upon  the  front  / 
stage. 

The  general  direction  of  the  Faery  Pastoral  (written  for 
Paul's  in  1603)  shows  the  same  thing: 

Highest,  aloft  and  on  the  Top  of  the  Musick  Tree  the  Title  The 
Faery  Pastorall,  Beneath  him  pind  on  Post  of  the  Tree  The  Scene  Eluida 
Forrest.  Lowest  off  all  ouer  the  Canopie  NAIIAITBOAAION  or  Faery 
Chappell.  A  Kiln  of  Brick.  A  Fowen  Cott.  A  Hollowe  Oake  with  vice 
of  wood  to  shutt  to.  A  Lowe  well  with  Roape  and  Pullye.  A  Fourme  of 
Turues.  A  greene  Bank  being  Pillowe  to  the  Hed  but.  Lastly  A  Hole 
to  creep  in  and  out.  Now  if  so  be  that  the  properties  of  any  of  These, 
that  be  outward,  will  not  serue  the  tm-ne  by  reason  of  concm-se  of  the 
People  on  the  Stage,  Then  you  may  omitt  the  sayd  Properties  which  be 
outward  and  supplye  their  Places  with  their  Nuncupations  onely  in  Text 
Letters.     Thus  for  some. 

"The  sayd  Properties  which  be  outward"  can  hardly  mean  any- 
thing else  than  that  some  usually  stood  out  on  the  front  stage,  and 
that  they  would  thus  be  in  the  way  of  the  spectators  sitting  on  the 
stage.  Probably  in  this  play  these  properties  were  the  kiln,  the 
bank,  the  cot,  the  hollow  oak,  and  the  well;  for  only  the  chapel 
seems  to  be  concealed  by  the  "canopy."  These  instances  alone 
show  one  of  the  main  principles  of  alternation  not  always  to  have 
been  true ;  the  following  scenes  from  other  plays  indicate  the  same 
thing: 

607 


28  '  George  F.  Reynolds 

Dido  (1594,  Chapel  Children,  III,  1).— If  the  pictures  which 
Aeneas  is  describing  as  visible  were  represented  at  all,  they  must 
have  heen  hung  on  the  front  stage,  for  sc.  2  must  begin  with  the 
discovery  of  Ascanius. 

In  Looking  Glass  for  LoJidon  (1594),  1.  558,  Remilia  says: 
"Shut  close  these  Curtaines  straight,  and  shadow  me."  "They 
draw  the  Curtaines,  and  Musicke  plaies."  Then  Magi  enter,  and, 
at  the  command  of  the  king,  "the  Magi  with  their  rods  beate  the 
ground,  and  from  vnder  the  same  riseth  a  braue  Arbour."  Mean- 
while the  king  exits,  to  return  in  more  splendid  attire.  Directly 
after  his  re-entrance  it  thunders,  the  king  "drawes  the  Curtaines, 
and  findes  her  stroken  with  thunder,  blacke."  Here  there  is  not 
only  a  property,  the  arbour,  outside  the  curtain,  but  the  trap-door, 
which  Brodmeier  supposes  in  the  rear  stage,  is  also  obviously  not 
concealed  by  it.  In  much  the  same  way  in  Wonder  of  Women 
(1606,  Blackfriars)  the  altar  and  trap  are  without  the  curtains  in 
III,  1,  and  V,  1. 

David  and  Bethsabe  (1599) :  In  II,  2,  there  is  a  banquet;  in 
sc.  3,  a  banquet;  but  in  sc.  4  a  throne  and  the  balcony  as  the 
walls  of  a  town  are  employed  together.  Thus  three  property 
scenes  come  in  succession. 

Alexander  and  Campaspe  (1584,  Paul's  and  Her  Majesty's 
Children),  III,  3,  4:  If  the  shop  in  which  sc.  8  occurs  was  the 
rear  stage,  as  is  at  least  possible,  Diogenes'  tub  of  sc.  4  must  have 
been  on  the  front  stage.  In  the  last  scene  the  shop  is  described 
as  in  sight  at  the  same  time.  A  similar  situation  is  to  be  found  in 
V,  8,  4.  This  play  is  most  easily  explained  by  making  the  alcove 
stage  the  shop,  and  by  placing  the  tub  near  one  of  the  doors.  It 
is  curious  to  observe  however — and  this  perhaps  would  make  one 
think  the  shop  a  structure — that  no  concealed  entrance  is  neces- 
sary for  it;  all  people  appearing  in  it  go  in  and  come  out  of  it  in 
plain  sight  of  the  audience. 

Alphonsus  (1599),  III,  1,  2:  Scene  1  uses  a  chair  which 
should  be  throne-like,  but  perhaps  was  not;  so  does  sc.  2,  but 
the  scene  is  in  a  different  country.  Scene  2,  moreover,  employs 
a  trap-door  and,  perhaps,  woods,  a  change  of  place  from  the  palace 
to  a  solitary  grove  occurring  without  clearing  the  stage.      Unless 


Some  Principles  of  Elizabethan  Staging  29 

one  prefers  supposing  chair  and  woods  on  the  rear  stage  at  the 
same  time,  one  must  place  either  woods  or  chair  on  the  front 
stage. 

Sapho  and  Phao  (1584,  Paul's  and  Her  Majesty's  Children), 
IV,  3:  At  the  end  of  the  scene  Sapho  orders  her  maids  to  "draw 
the  curtains."  There  is  no  exeunt  direction  for  them.  Scene  4 
should  use  a  forge  in  the  shop  of  Vulcan;  in  V,  1,  this  forge  is 
alluded  to  as  present;  it  was  probably  used,  therefore,  in  both 
scenes;  in  V,  1,  it  is  apparently  near  one  of  the  doors,  and  the 
seat  of  Sapho  is  also  in  view. 

TJie  Old  Wives''  Tale  (1595,  Queen's):  This  play  is  one  succes- 
sion of  property  clashes.  If  the  cell  of  Sacrapant  is  the  rear 
stage,  both  the  well  and  the  cross  must  be  outside  the  curtain  (see 
Part  II  for  more  detailed  description). 

These  scenes  are  none  of  them  conclusive,  for  by  using  struc- 
tures for  the  shop,  etc.,  or  doors  for  some  of  the  discoveries,  it  is 
perhaps  possible  to  explain  all  the  plays  without  placing  properties 
on  the  front  stage.  But  why  should  this  be  considered  neces- 
sary ?  The  Faery  Pastoral  and  Swan  pictures  show  that  prop- 
erties did  stand  on  the  front  stage.  It  must  have  been  set  with 
stools  for  the  spectators,  and  these  were  no  doubt  used  in  scenes 
requiring  seats,  even  perhaps  for  such  large  scenes  as  the  Senate 
of  Rome.  Tables  also  are  brought  in  extremely  often  or  assumed 
without  any  direction  whatever.  If  all  scenes  where  seats  are 
used  were  classed  as  in  scenes,  many  plays  would  be  nothing  but 
a  continual  series  of  clashes;  the  Staple  of  News  (1625),  for 
example,  or  almost  any  of  Jonson's  plays.  Plays  are  extremely 
numerous,  moreover,  in  which  larger  properties  are  brought  in; 
for  example,  II  Henry  VI,  (1623);  If  You  Knoio  Not  Me  You 
Know  Nobody  (1605),  and  Golden  Age  (1611,  Queen's  at  Red 
Bull),'  which  show  that  even  so  awkward  a  property  as  a  bed  was 

1 II  Henry  VI,  folio,  134,  has  the  direction  :  "Bed  put  forth",  //  You  Know  Not  Me  You 
Know  Nobody  (1605),  p.  200:  The  scene  is  an  antechamber  in  which  a  commission  is  waiting 
for  Elizabeth.  A  woman  says  she  will  tell  Elizabeth,  but  Tame  says:  "It  shall  not  need 
....  Presse  after  her,  my  Lord."  "Enter  Elizabeth  in  her  bed."  She  says:  "We  are  not 
pleased  with  your  intrusion.  Lords."  This  can  perhaps,  since  it  is  so  very  unrealistic,  be 
interpreted  as  a  discovered  scene.  The  Golden  Age,  1611  (Queen's,  Red  Bull),  p.  67,  cannot  so 
be  explained,  however.  The  direction  reads:  "Enter  the  foure  old  Beldams  drawing  out 
Danae's  bed:  she  in  it."  The  scene  changes  as  in  the  instance  just  mentioned,  from  ante- 
chamber to  bedroom. 


30  George  F.  Reynolds 

sometimes  urought  upon  the  stage  without  the  slightest  explana- 
tion. Perhaps  these  properties  were  not  used  on  the  front  stage, 
but  wherever  used  they  were  brought  on  in  sight  of  the  audience, 
which  amounts  to  the  same  thing.  The  only  obvious  reason  for 
not  supposing  properties  on  the  front  stage  is  the  difficulty,  delay, 
and  lack  of  realism  in  the  bringing  on  and  taking  off.  Difficulty 
and  delay  one  may  admit,  but  realism — so  far  as  the  plays  go,  there 
is  no  indication  that  the  Elizabethans  were  at  all  adverse  to  the 
bringing  on  of  furnishings  before  them.  If  one  can  judge  from 
the  frequent  occurrence  and  long  continuance  of  the  custom,  they 
rather  enjoyed  it.  At  any  rate,  the  burden  of  proof  is  decidedly 
upon  the  alternationists  when  they  assume  that,  because  of  this 
dislike,  or  more  probably  because  of  modern  dislike  for  such  a 
practice,  properties  were  never  used  on  the  front  stage. 

Of  the  other  principles,  the  one  that  no  two  in  scenes,  dif- 
ferently set,  could  directly  succeed  each  other,  is  of  course  unde- 
niable. Some  pause,  however  short,  was  necessary  for  the 
rearrangement.  The  alternationists,  insistent  upon  a  continuous 
performance,  have  however,  assumed  that  the  dramatists  composed 
special  out  scenes  for  the  sole  purpose  of  filling  these  pauses.'  Any 
short  scene  apparently  unnecessary  to  the  plot,  they,  for  that 
reason,  label  at  once  as  an  out  scene,  and  the  scenes  before  and 
after  as  in  scenes.  The  Merchant  of  Venice  (1596,  1600),  III, 
5,  is  a  case  in  point.^  It  is  the  punning  conversation  of  Launcelot 
and  Jessica,  and,  its  value  not  being  easily  apparent  to  a  modern 
reader,  it  is  at  once  selected  as  an  out  scene,  even  though  it  ends 
the  act;  and  there  is  no  reason,  therefore,  for  supposing  an  out 
scene  at  all.  Having  determined  that  scene  5  is  an  out  scene,  of 
course,  scene  4  becomes  as  m  scene — and  another  proof  of  alterna- 
tion is  thus  secured.  But  such  scenes  may  have  arisen  from  very 
different  reasons:  to  allow  a  change  of  costume,  or,  as  perhaps  in 
this  case,  to  give  the  actor  of  the  part  of  Launcelot  an  opportunity 
to  display  his  talents.     An  author  did  not  need  to  bother  himself 

1  KiLiAN  {Jahrbuch,  XXXVI,  p.  235)  is  so  insistent  upon  a  continuous  performance  that 
he  denies  even  the  act  intermissions,  unmindful  of  the  numerous  clashes  which  would  result 
and  the  specific  directions,  of  such  plays  as  Wars  of  Cyrus  (1594,  Chapel),  1 ;  the  "plat"  of 
Dead  Man's  Fortune  (1592-93) ;  Wonder  of  Women  (1606,  Blackfriars) ;  and  all  of  Percy's 
plays,  written  apparently  for  Paul's  at  the  beginning  of  the  seventeenth  century. 

2  See  KiLiAN,  loc.  cit. 

610 


Some  Principles  of  Elizabethan  Staging  81 

to  fill  the  slight  pauses  arising  from  the  stage  management.  Most 
of  the  pauses  must  have  been  short — -the  out  scenes  suggested  to 
fill  them  average  about  two  minutes  in  length;  why  should  the 
spectators  for  so  short  a  time  require  special  amusement?  Such 
scenes  did  not  shorten  the  play,  nor,  according  to  the  theory, 
improve  it ;  they  were  mere  stop-gaps.  ,  If  it  were  necessary  to 
have  something  going  on,  the  orchestra  was  always  ready  to  play 
or  the  clown  to  come  in  with  his  jigs  and  nonsense.'  The  alterna- 
tion theory,  when  it  goes  so  far  as  this,  seems  to  me  to  be  solving 
a  non-existent  difficulty,  and  to  be  useless  and  improbable.  As 
presented  by  Brodmeier,  however,  it  is  much  more  credible.  He 
admits  the  act  intermissions  (see,  for  example,  p.  79) ;  he 
admits  the  use  of  music,  even  within  the  act,  to  till  the  time  used 
in  setting  properties  (p.  90)  ;  he  recognizes  split  scenes,  without 
emphasizing,  however,  that  they  are  a  custom  before  unnoted  by 
students,  and  therefore  deserving  of  more  attention.^ 

With  all  these  exceptions  and  variations— and  without  them 
the  theory  is  not  to  be  received — the  alternation  theory  loses 
most  of  its  force  as  a  constructive  influence  on  the  plays.  In 
scenes  were  not  unnecessarily  preceded  by  out  scenes;  there  were 
a  number  of  ways  to  avoid  them,  and  Brodmeier  wisely  does  not 
emphasize,  indeed  hardly  alludes  to,  what  former  writers  have 
made  much  of.  As  stated  by  him,  the  theory  amounts,  construc- 
tively, hardly  to  more  than  saying  that  in  scenes  were  often 
preceded  by  out  scenes — a  fact  no  one  would  deny.  But  in 
attempting  to  prove  alternation  important  and  of  wide  applica- 

1  (See  Hall,  quoted  in  Bullen's  Marlowe,  Vol.  I,  p.  xx). 

2  In  a  split  scene  the  action  begins  on  the  rear  stage,  but  gradually  transfers  itself  to 
the  front  stage.  At  first  it  uses  properties,  and  the  impression  of  location  is  strong,  but 
toward  the  end  the  conversation  itself  usually  shows  either  by  an  absence  of  reference  or  by 
some  direct  hint  that  the  setting  is  no  longer  before  the  audience.  Some  such  scene  seems 
to  be  described  by  Genee  [Entwickelung  des  scenischen  Theaters,  pp.  42,  43)  as  occurring  on 
the  stage  of  Johann  Rist,  1647  in  KOnigsberg— a  stage  which  he  thinks  showed  English 
influence.  A  typical  scene  occurs  in  Histrio-mastix,  II,  1,  2  (written  1599?;  published  1610). 
Scene  1  begins ;  "Enter  Plenty  in  Majesty,  upon  a  Throne;  heapes  of  gold;  Plutus,  Ceres, 
Bacchus  doing  homage."  Scene  2  has  a  curtain  drawn  discovering  a  "Market  set  about  a 
Crosse".  The  throne  is  left  vacant  at  1.  46,  when  the  curtain  could  have  been  closed,  the 
action  transferred  to  the  front  stage,  and  the  rear  stage  rearranged. 

Split  scenes  must  be  assumed  very  often  if  the  alternation  theory  is  to  be  held  at  all. 
Brodmeier  even  in  Shakespeare  is  compelled  to  resort  to  them  many  times;  for  example, 
Richard  11,  1,  3,  4  (p.  84) ;  Henry  VIII,  1,  2,  3  (p.  86) ;  Richard  III,  4,  5  (p.  92) ;  Hamlet,  III, 
1,  2  (p.  94). 

611 


32  Geokge  F.  Keynolds 

tion  he  uses  tests  for  in  scenes  which  are  found,  when  applied 
logically  and  completely  to  contemporary  plays,  to  be  self- 
contradictory  and  rather  to  discredit  than  prove  the  theory. 
They  rest  either  on  an  unproved  reconstruction  of  the  stage,  as  in 
the  case  of  the  door  and  balcony  tests,  or,  in  that  of  the  prop- 
erties, on  a  modern  idea  of  dramatic  propriety.  The  whole 
theory  as  an  important  factor  in  play-construction  is  as  yet  only 
a  figment  of  the  imagination;  and  the  fact  that  the  plays  of 
Shakespeare  have  been  arranged  according  to  it  proves  hardly 
more  than  that  the  imagination  has  worked  consistently.  The  more 
complete  a  play  is  in  directions,  the  more  difficulty  does  it  present 
when  one  tries  to  make  it  conform  to  the  alternation  system. 
Conversely,  the  early  plays,  like  Camhises  [ca.  1570),  which  have 
almost  no  stage  or  property  directions,  probably  because  they 
were  played  on  the  simplest  of  stages  and  with  practically  no  fur- 
nishings, are  for  that  reason  the  easiest  to  arrange  into  brilliant 
examples  of  alternation.     All  this  throws  doubt  on  the  theory. 

But  worse  than  this  is  an  objection  which  not  only  would  make 
it  unproved,  but  unprovable.  Perhaps  no  plays  can  be  accepted 
as  reliable  evidence  in  this  matter.  The  alternation  theory  rests 
largely  on  the  succession  of  scenes,  and  must  therefore  deal  with 
copies  of  the  plays  which  represent  them  as  they  were  actually 
produced.  Such  notes  as  the  following  are  therefore  disquieting : 
From  the  printer's  address,  Tamburlaine,  1592: 

I  have  purposely  omitted  and  left  out  some  fond  and  frivolous 
gestures,  digressing,  and,  in  my  poor  opinion,  far  unmeet  for  the  matter, 
which  I  thought  might  seem  more  tedious  unto  the  wise  than  any  way 
else  to  be  regarded,  though  haply  they  have  been  of  some  vain-conceited 
fondlings  greatly  gaped  at,  what  time  they  were  showed  upon  the  stage 
in  their  graced  deformities. 

A  note  in  a  MS  version  of  Bonduca  [AthencFAim,  February  14, 
1903)  explaining  an  hiatus  in  the  text: 

The  occasion  why  these  [scenes]  are  wanting  here,  the  books  whereby 
it  was  first  acted  from  is  lost;  and  this  hath  beene  transcribed  from  the 
fovvle  papers  of  the  Author  wh.  were  found. 

Stationer  to  the  Reader,  1647  Folio  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher: 

612 


Some  Principles  of  Elizabethan  Staging  33 

One  thing  I  must  answer  before  it  is  objected;  'tis  this.  When  these 
comedies  and  tragedies  were  presented  on  the  stage,  the  actors  omitted 
some  scenes  and  passages  with  the  author's  consent  as  occasion  led 
them :  and  when  private  friends  desired  a  copy,  they  then  and  justly  too, 
transcribed  what  they  acted;  but  now  you  have  both  all  that  was  acted 
and  all  that  was  not,  even  the  full  perfect  originals  without  the  least 
mutilation,  so  that  were  the  authors  living  they  themselves  would 
challenge  neither  more  nor  less  than  what  is  here  put  down,  this  volume 
being  now  so  complete  and  finished  that  the  reader  must  expect  no 
future  alterations. 

If  publishers  took  the  liberty  of  editing  whole  scenes  away,  if 
the  authors  MSS  do  not  represent  the  acted  versions,  if  these 
MSS  were  themselves  sometimes  incomplete  and  defective,  there 
is  little  chance  for  proving  a  theory  which  rests  entirely  on  the 
acted  alternation  of  scenes. 

Yet  if  the  alcove  stage  be  allowed,  there  certainly  are  in  the 
plays  hints  of  alternation.  Old  Fortunatus  (1600,  Admiral's), 
perhaps  by  chance,  perhaps  by  the  very  necessities  of  the  story, 
falls  into  an  almost  perfect  succession  of  in  and  out  scenes;  so 
does  Aiiionio's  Revenge  (1602,  Paul's),  if  one  assume  several 
split  scenes.  Sir  Giles  Goosecap  (1606,  Chapel),  V;  Edward  I 
(1593),  V;  Arden  of  Feversham  (1592),  V,  provided  the  texts 
are  accepted  as  complete,  also  illustrate  it.  In  most  of  these 
cases  the  directions  themselves  practically  demand  the  rear  stage. 
When  that  is  the  case,  no  one  can  deny  the  existence  of  alterna- 
tion. Sometimes  it  does  even  happen  that  an  unfurnished  scene 
intervenes  between  two  obvious  rear-stage  scenes,  and  alternation 
is  undoubtedly  illustrated.  But  when,  as  most  of  the  time,  alter- 
nation rests  only  on  unproved  tests  arising  from  an  unproved 
stage,  and  is  based  upon  the  exact  succession  of  scenes  in  texts  of 
whose  integrity,  in  view  of  contemporary  comments,  no  one  can 
be  sure,  the  theory  becomes  rather  a  pleasant  exercise  of  the 
imagination,  an  imposition  of  modern  ideas  upon  ancient  custom, 
than  an  established  principle  of  the  universal  method  of  Eliza- 
bethan staging.  It  is  unproved  as  yet,  and,  in  view  of  the  diffi- 
culty of  securing  adequate  tests  or  absolutely  certain  sources 
of  information,  seems  almost  incapable  of  proof.  It  may  be 
accepted  as  an  occasional  method  of  staging ;  but  as  the  universal 

613 


34  George  F.  Reynolds 

and  common  and  fundamental  principle  which  every  dramatist 
was  bound  to  observe,  it  certainly  cannot  be  accepted.  Indeed 
some  plays  cannot  at  all  be  explained  by  it;  these,  with  the  stag- 
ing which  they  illustrate,  will  be  considered  in  Part  II, 

George  F.  Reynolds. 

Shattuck  School, 
Faribault,  Minn. 


614 


SOME    PRINCIPLES  OF  ELIZABETHAN   STAGING' 

PART  II 

Besides  the  objections  against  accepting  alternation  as  the 
universal  method  of  Elizabethan  staging,  there  is  another  consid- 
eration which,  though  not  absolutely  excluding  the  possibility  of 
alternation,  suggests  the  existence  of  an  entirely  different  practice. 

Some  plays,  no  matter  how  thoroughly  proved  alternation 
might  be,  could  not  be  explained  by  it.  Specific  scenes  from 
them  have  already  been  alluded  to,  but  it  is  as  complete  plays 
that  they  present  difficulties  not  easily  to  be  solved.  They  illus- 
trate a, dramatic  convention  long  since  disused;  never,  indeed, 
fully  recognized  by  modern  students  as  existing  in  plays  of  the 
Shakespearean  theater.  This  convention  allowed  the  presence 
upon  the  stage  of  a  property  or  furnishing  which  was  incongruous 
to  the  scene  in  progress,  and  which,  during  that  scene,  was  thought 
of  as  absent,  though  standing  in  plain  sight.  This  incongruity 
took  two  forms:  either  the  close  jiixtaposition  upon  the  stage  of 
two  properties  which  in  reality  should  have  been  a  much  greater 
distance  apart,  or  the  presence  of  a  property  in  a  scene  where  it 
could  never  naturally  have  been;  as  a  tree,  for  example,  in  the 
midst  of  a  room  scene>-  It  is  directly  in  contradiction  to  our 
modem  ideal  of  securing  complete  illusion  and  a  perfectly  har- 
monious stage  picture.  A  stage  with  such  incongruity  could 
attempt  no  stage  picture  at  all;  it  would  rather  by  its  properties 
suggest  as  by  symbols  the  scene  of  action.  That  the  Elizabethan 
stage  could  have  been  so  unrealistic  seems  to  us  absurd  and 
im.probable,  but  the  probability  of  this  staging  does  not  depend 
upon  whether  it  would  Vje  acceptable  to  us.  If  pre-Elizabethan 
staging  exhibited  this  same  incongruity,  if  there  were  Elizabethan 
customs  tending  to  create  a  similarly  symbolic  stage,  the  belief 
that  such  a  stage  actually  existed  in  Shakespeare's  time  becomes, 
not  absurd  and  impossible,  but   thoroughly  reasonable.]     As  to 

1  For  illustration  of  the  principle  of  staging  described  in  Part  I  in  connection  with 
Jocasta,  see  Bapst,  Essai  sur  Vhistoire  du  thA&tre  (Paris,  1893),  esp.  p.  2.>3 ;  or  (as  earlier  and 
better)  the  plate  attached  to  II  Granchio,  Comedia  di  L.  Salviati.    In  Firenze  1566. 

69]  1  [Modern  Philology,  June,  1905 


2  George  F.  Keynolds 

pre-Elizabethan  conditions  no  special  investigation  is  necessary, 
for  Chambers  in  the  Mediceval  Stage,  and  Creizenach  in  his 
Oeschichte  des  7ieueren  Dramas,  in  tracing  the  development  of 
staging  from  the  origin  of  the  modern  drama  to  the  time  of 
Shakespeare,  have  given  ample  proof  that  a  similar  staging, 
indeed,  that  the  identical  conventions,  had  existed  for  centuries, 
I  do  not  attempt  even  to  summarize  the  points  which  they  make, 
but  only  to  indicate  briefly  how  the  mediaeval  staging  with  sedes, 
"houses,"  etc.,  was  closely  related  to  the  staging  of  these  plays 
of  Shakespeare's  day. 

When  the  drama  began  within  the  churches  with  the  liturgical 
plays,  there  was,  of  course,  no  attempt  to  make  a  completely  con- 
gruous stage  picture.  The  sepulcher'  of  the  Easter  play  and  the 
crib  of  the  Christmas  play^  were  actually  and  more  or  less  real- 
istically represented,  but  only  symbolically  suggested  the  rest  of 
the  picture  to  the  auditors.  The  action  of  the  play  might  be 
before  a  cave,  on  the  way  to  the  sepulcher,  in  the  city  of  Jerusalem, 
in  Galilee,  where  the  author  willed,  but  the  place  of  the  play  was 
always  the  church.  Any  complete  stage  picture  was  undreamed 
of.  When  the  plays  moved  out  into  the  churchyard  and  the 
ftiarket-place,  they  kept,  as  Chambers  shows,^  their  method  of 
presentation  much  as  it  was.  He  prints  a  plan  of  the  Donau- 
eschingen  passion-play  dating  from  the  sixteenth  century,  in  which 
the  loci,  "houses,"  etc.,  are  arranged  as  follows,  beginning  at  the 
west  (?)  end — hell,  Gethsemane,  Olivet;  Herod's  palace,  Pilate's 
palace,  the  pillar  of  scourging,  the  pillar  of  the  cock,  the  house 
of  Caiphas,  the  house  of  Ananias,  the  house  of  the  Last  Supper; 
the  graves  of  the  dead  who  arise,  the  three  crosses,  the  sepulcher, 
heaven.  The  incongruity  of  this  staging  is,  of  course,  marked, 
consisting  especially  in  the  close  juxtaposition  of  widely  separated 
places.  When  such  plays,  however,  came  to  be  played  on  stages 
with  these  sedes  and  "houses"  crowded  together  as  portrayed  by 
the  miniatures  of  the  Valenciennes  Passion,*  it  amounted  to  the 
presence  of  properties  in  scenes  where  they  were  not  supposed 
to  be,  and  both  forms  of  incongruity  were  illustrated.     Heaven, 

1  Chambers,  op.  cit.,  Vol.  II,  pp.  22  ff .  2  ibid.,  pp.  42  S.  3  ibid..  Vol.  II,  pp.  80  ff. 

*1547;  see  Petit  de  Julleville,  Histoire  de  la  langue  et  de  la  literature  francaises, 
Vol,  II,  p.  416;  or  Jusserand,  Shakespeare  in  France,  p.  63. 

70 


Some  Principles  of  Elizabethan  Staging  3 

beneath  it  a  hall,  then  Nazareth,  the  temple,  Jerusalem,  the 
Golden  Gate,  a  square  sea  upon  which  rides  a  ship,  hell  mouth — 
all  are  crowded  upon  the  Valenciennes  stage  at  one  time.  This 
must  have  been  the  condition  in  any  play  of  the  mediseval  type 
played  in  a  limited  space.  Jusserand*  comments  on  this  sort  of 
staging  in  the  following  way: 

Plays  being  acted  now  within  a  small  space,  inside  a  closed  building, 
"  simultaneous  scenery  "  was  used.  On  the  same  canvas  were  painted  in 
summary  fashion  and  in  close  juxtaposition  all  the  places  where  the  events 
in  the  play  were  located :  a  forest  was  represented  by  a  tree ;  the  Lybian 
mountains,  by  a  rock  ;  Athens,  Rome,  or  Jerusalem,  by  a  portico  with  the 
name  written  above,  as  in  the  mystery  mansions,  as  in  Gozzoli's  frescoes 
at  Pisa,  as  on  the  English  stage  under  Elizabeth,  '"Thebes'  written  in 
great  letters  upon  an  olde  doore"  said  Sidney.^ 

He  also  quotes^  a  scene-shifter's  description  of  the  scenery  used 
in  a  performance  of  Pandoste  at  the  Hotel  de  Bourgogne,  1631, 
and  reproduces  the  original  sketches:  "In  the  center  of  the 
theater  there  must  be  a  fine  palace;  on  one  side,  a  large  prison 
where  one  can  be  entirely  seen ;  on  the  other  side  a  temple ;  below, 
the  prow  of  a  ship,  a  low  sea,  reeds,  and  steps."  ^  This  was  for 
the  first  day.  The  second  day  of  the  play  required  "two  palaces, 
a  peasant's  house,  and  a  wood."  This  play  and  the  Valenciennes 
picture,  therefore,  show  much  the  same  condition  which  occurs 
in  the  Elizabethan  plays  under  discussion — places  represented 
close  together  which  really  should  have  been  miles  apart,  and 
properties  incongruous  to  all  scenes  but  the  ones  they  were  sup- 
posed to  locate,  these  two  customs  uniting  to  make  impossible 
any  congruous  stage  picture. 

In  English  dramatic  history  writers  have  emphasized  the  pro- 
cessional plays  more  than  the  standing  plays;  but  Chambers 
mentions  several  which  he  thinks  were  not  of  the  former  type. 
So  a  series  of  London  plays,  traceable  perhaps  to  the  beginning 
of  the  sixteenth  century,  was  "cyclical  in  character  but  not  pro- 
cessional."^    The  Creed  Play   at  York  was  stationary,  and  was 

1  Op.  cit.,  p.  69. 

2  Lawrence  {EngUscheStudien,Yo\.  XXXII,  No.  1,  p.  41)  writes  to  the  same  effect.  Neither 
of  these  writers,  however,  suggests  the  survival  of  the  custom  on  the  Shakespearean  stage. 

3/6Jd.,  pp.  69,  70.  */6i(i.,  pp.  71,  75.  5  Op.  cj<.,  Vol.  II,  p.  119. 

71 


4:  George  F.  Reynolds 

acted  in  the  common  hall.'  "The  parochial  plays,"  common 
throughout  England,  "were  always,  so  far  as  can  be  seen,  station- 
ary."^ The  Ludus  Coventriae  Chambers  thinks  also  a  stationary 
play."  Sometimes  the  play  was  actually  on  a  platform,  as  at  Chelms- 
ford, Kingston,  Reading,  and  Dublin.*  The  Satire  of  the  Three 
Estates,  played  at  Cupar  in  1535,  was  certainly  a  stationary  play, 
and  so  was  the  Digby  3Iary  Magdalen.  In  this  latter  were  rep- 
resented Mary's  castle,  perhaps  at  Bethany,  Jerusalem,  a  stage 
for  the  devil  with  a  place  under  it  for  hell,  an  arbor  in  which 
Mary  lies  down  to  sleep,  Lazarus'  tomb,  and  "Marcylle,"  which 
is  separated  from  Jerusalem  by  a  sea  on  which  Mary  embarks  in 
a  ship.  There  is  apparently  a  rock  in  this  sea,  and  a  temple  at 
Marcylle,  though  this  is  not  quite  so  clear.  Heaven  seems  an 
elevated  place,  to  which  Mary  is  raised ;  from  it  clouds  and  angels 
descend.  The  Cornish  plays,  given  in  circular  playing-places, 
must  also  have  been  stationary ;  so  was  the  Lincoln  play  of  Tobias. 
The  following  passage  in  the  town  records  shows  its  character: 

1.564,  July:  A  note  of  the  perti  ....  the  properties  of  the  staige 
....  played  in  the  moneth  of  July  anno  sexto  regni  reginae  Eliza- 
bethae,  &c.,  in  the  tyme  of  the  mayoralty  of  Richard  Carter,  whiche  play 
was  then  played  in  Brodgaite  in  the  seid  citye,  and  it  was  of  the  storye 
of  Tobias  in  the  Old  Testament. 

The  properties  are  described  as  follows: 

Hell  mouth,  with  a  neither  chap,  a  prison  with  a  coveryng,  Sara['sJ 
chambre,  a  greate  idoll  with  a  clubb,  a  tombe  with  a  coveryng,  the  citie 
of  Jerusalem  with  towers  and  pynacles,  the  citie  of  Raignes  with  towers 
and  pynacles,  the  citie  of  Nynyvye,  the  Kyng's  palace  of  Nynyve,  olde 
Tobyes  house,  the  Isralytes  house  and  the  neighbures  house,  the  Kyng's 
palace  at  Laches,  a  fyrmament  with  a  fierye  clowde  and  a  duble  clowde.* 
Its  cities,  palaces,  tombs,  etc.,  since  it  was  a  "standing"  play 
"played  in  Brodgaite,"  must  have  been  used  at  one  playing-place, 
and,  in  view  of  what  we  know  of  mediaeval  custom,  simultaneously. 
In  principle  the  staging  could  not  have  been  very  different  from 
that  represented  in  the  Valenciennes  miniature.  Yet  it  was 
played  in  1564,  five  years  after  Elizabeth  began  to  reign. 

1  Ibid.,  p.  120.  2  Ibid.,  p.  122. 

a  Ibid.,  p.  421.    The  division  into  separate  pageants  is  due  to  the  modern  editor. 

i  Ibid.,  p.  136.  5  Hist.  Mss.  Com.  Reports,  XIV-VIII,  pp.  57,  58. 

72 


Some  Principles  of  Elizabethan  Staging  5 

Creizenach,'  moreover,  thinks  that  the  "houses,"  etc.,  mentioned 
so    frequently    in   the    records    of    the    Revels    office    were    for 
plays    staged    after    this    same    manner.      So    ca.   151V   Lady 
Barbara,  Effiginia,  Ajax  and  Ulisses,  Narcisses,  Cloridon  and 
JRadiamanta,  and  Paris  and  Vienna  were  furnished  with  "apt 
howses,    made    of    Canvasse,    fframed,    ffashioned    arul    paynted 
accordingly;    as    mighte    best    serve    theier    severall    purposes;" 
1579-80,^  a  History  of  the  Duke  of  Millayn  and  the  Marques 
of  Mantua  was   furnished  with  "a  Countie    howse  a  Cyttye;" 
a  History  of  Aliicius,  with  "a  Cittie,  a  Battlement;"  a  History 
of  the  Foure  Sonnes  of  Fahyous,    with  "a  Citie,   a  Mounte;" 
a  History  of  Serpedon,*  with  "a  greate  Citie,  a  wood,  a  castell." 
Unless  one  supposes  changes  of  setting,  which  would  be  diffi- 
cult with  such  heavy  properties,  one  must  consider  these  plays 
as  medievally  staged.      But  since   they  were  presumably  from 
the  regular  repertoire  of  the  professional  companies,  these  court 
presentations    could    not    have    differed    greatly,    especially    in 
such  fundamental  matters,  from  the  usual  public  performances 
of  the  same  plays,  and  these  records  are,  therefore,  especially 
valuable  not  only  as  showing  the  existence  in  Elizabethan  times 
of  incongruous   staging,  but  as   leading  to  the  inference  of   its     ^ 
existence  on  the    popular  stage   of  that  time.      Thersites^    also, 
Creizenach  considers*^  a  play  practically  of  the  mediseval  type. 
Here,  then,  is  a  direct  line  of  English  plays  which  were  doubtless 
staged  in  the  nTediievar  fashion,"'  andTwhicTi^c^^ 
tom  of  the  mediseval  stage  down  to  the  time  of  Shakespeaf^f*^'**"*' ' 
Instead,  therefore,  of  its  seeming  unreasonable  and  iihpdSSible    |^ 
\j   to  Englishmen  to  have  incongruous  properties  on  the  stage,  it  / 
was  quite  an  accustomed  thing,  something  they  had  long  beenl 
used  to.     Preceding  stage  custom,  the  best  possible  justification! 
and  explanation  of  any  dramatic  convention,  had  sanctioned  such 
staging  practically  since  the  origin  of  the  drama.      There  were, 
moreover,  numerous  customs  of  the  contemporary  stage,  partly 

1  Op.  cit.,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  571, 

2  Cunningham,  Revels  Accounts,  Vol.  II,  p.  13,  Shak.  Soc,  1842.  I  do  not  pretend  to  collect 
here  from  the  accounts  of  the  Revels  all  the  information  of  value  which  they  furnish  con- 
cerning the  properties  and  customs  of  the  Elizabethan  theater.  That  is  a  subject  in  itself 
deserving  a  separate  discussion.  3  Op.cil.,  p.  153. 

*  Op.  cit.,  p.  155.  '■>  Ward,  1537 ;  pr.  1567,  or  later.  e  Op.  cit..  Vol.  Ill,  p.  540. 

73 


4 


6  George  F.  Reynolds 

perhaps  the  result  of  this  incongruous  staging,  but  certainly 
similar  to  it  in  effect,  —  the  creation  of  a  symbolic  rather  than  a 
picture  stage,  that  is,  a  stage  on  which  the  properties  are 
intended  only  to  suggest  the  scene  rather  than  to  picture  it  com- 
pletely, congruously,  and  realistically.  Some  of  these  customs 
have  already  been  alluded  to;  for  example,  the  unlocated  scene.  J  In 
all  the  Elizabethan  plays  these  scenes  are  common.  They  con- 
tain no  hint  as  to  the  place  of  the  supposed  action;  they  could 
be  imagined  as  occurring  anywhere.  Everyone  admits  their 
existence;  it  is  therefore  quite  unnecessary  to  discuss  them  at 
length.  It  is  necessary,  however,  to  notice  how  consistent  they 
were  with  the  symbolic  stage,  but  how  inconsistent  with  our  own. 
The  old-time  audience,  its  imagination  left  for  the  moment  unem- 
ployed, did  not  attempt  to  give  them  any  specific  background,  but 
accepted  them  for  what  they  were — unlocated  scenes — merely 
noting  the  progress  of  the  plot.  Modern  editors  feel  called  upon 
to  give  each  its  proper  setting — a  street,  a  court,  a  hall,  a  corri- 
dor— as  the  fancy  strikes  them.  /( On  a  stage  where  the  stage 
picture  is  of  dominating  importance  such  scenes  are  impossible; 
on  the  symbolic  stage  they  caused  no  difficulty  whatever.) 

Another  custom,  almost  as  commonly  illustrated  as  that  just 
spoken  of,  is  the  change  of  scene  before  the  eyes  of  the  audience. 
Generally  without  the  stage  being  cleared  of  actors,  the  supposed 
place  of  action  suddenly  shifts  to  an  entirely  different  place. 
Creizenach'  notes  illustrations  of  this  in  Zeigler's  Infanticidiurn, 
III,  1,  and  in  his  Nomothesia  (1574),  where  a  three  days'  journey 
is  indicated  by  walking  about  the  stage.  The  English  craft-plays 
also  furnish  examples;  for  instance,  in  the  fourth  play  of  the 
Towneley  cycle  the  three  days'  journey  of  A'braham  and  Isaac  to 
the  mount  of  sacrifice  is  indicated  in  twenty-six  lines  (139-G5). 
Among  the  illustrations  in  Shakespearean  times  are  the  following : 

Romeo  and  Juliet  (quarto  2,  1599;  4,  undated;  folio,  1623), 
I,  4,  5.  Romeo  and  his  friends  are  at  first  before  the  house  of 
Capulet,  but  with  the  direction,  "They  march  about  the  Stage, 
and  Serving  men  come  forth  with  their  napkins,"  the  scene  changes 
to  the  interior  of  the  house. 

1  Op.  cit..  Vol.  II,  p.  101. 

74 


Some  Principles  of  Elizabethan  Staging  7 

Alphonsus  (1599),  1.  1102:  The  scene  up  to  this  point  has 
been  in  the  palace  of  Amurack.  "Amuracke,  rise  in  a  rage  from 
thy  chaire"  (1060).  He  banishes  his  wife,  and  as  she  is  angrily 
leaving,  Medea  enters,  and  says:  "Fausta,  what  meanes  this  sudden 
flight  of  yours  ?  Why  do  you  leave  your  husbands  princely  Court, 
And  all  alone  passe  through  these  thickest  groues."  The  scene 
has  changed  before  our  eyes  from  the  palace  to  a  solitary  place. 

Dido  (1594),  I,  1,  1.  120:  The  scene  up  to  this  point  is  not 
definitely  located  at  all,  but  since  it  is  between  Jupiter,  Venus, 
and  Ganymede,  one  would  naturally  assume  it  to  be  upon  Olympus, 
It  certainly  is  not  in  the  midst  of  a  wood  on  the  seashore  near 
Carthage,  where  the  action  from  that  point  on  is  situated. 

Dido  (1591),  II,  1,  1.  306:  So  far,  the  scene  is  in  the  hall  of 
Dido.     At  this  line  it  changes  suddenly  to  a  grove. 

Antonio'' s  Revenge  (1602) ,  II,  1  (in  the  Quarto  this  is  divided 
into  two  scenes,  but  the  stage  is  not  cleared) :  Up  to  1.  17  the 
action  plainly  is  in  a  church  about  the  coffin  of  Andrugio;  the 
latter  part  of  the  scene  is  before  Mellida's  chambers. 

The  illustrations  so  far  advanced  might  perhaps  be  explained 
by  supposing  a  curtain  drawn  at  the  point  where  the  scene  changes ; 
but  no  such  theory  will  make  the  following  comply  with  modern 
ideas  of  dramatic  congruity.  In  them  the  scene  changes  by  the 
exeunt  and  immediate  re-entry  of  the  characters. 

The  Brazen  Age  (1613),  p.  177:  Hercules,  having  won  Dey- 
aneira,  is  going  away  with  her  when  he  meets  Nissus,  and  then  is 
stopped  by  a  stream.  Nissus  exits  to  carry  Deyaneira  across  the 
stream,  which  is  thought  of  as  off  the  stage.  Hercules,  rushing 
after  him,  shoots  him  with  an  arrow,  and  Nissus  at  once  enters, 
pierced  by  the  arrow,  and  we  learn  that  the  stage  is  now  supposed 
to  represent  the  other  shore. 

English  Traveller  (1633),  IV,  3,  p.  66:  "Tables  and  Stooles 
set  out;  Lights:  a  Banquet,  Wine."  At  the  end  of  the  banquet 
all  the  family  retire  to  their  chambers,  but  a  guest,  Geraldine,  is 
left  to  rest  on  a  pallet.  He  cannot  sleep  and  decides  to  seek  the 
room  of  his  hostess.  "He  goes  in  at  one  doore,  and  comes  out  at 
another",  (p.  69).  The  scene,  in  spite  of  the  continued  presence, 
of  the  pallet,  and  perhaps  of  the  table,  is  now  plainly  in  the  cor- 

75 


8  George  F.  Reynolds 

ridor  before  the  bedroom.  He  listens  at  the  door,  hears  voices 
within,  and  decides  to  leave  the  house. 

Old  Wives''  Tale  (1595):  The  play  begins  in  a  lonely  place: 
travelers  who  have  lost  their  way  meet  a  smith  returning  home; 
they  approach  his  house  with  him.  He  says:  "Come,  take  heed 
for  stumbling  on  the  threshold.  Open  door,  Madge,  take  in 
guests."  She  enters  and  says:  "Come  on,  sit  down;"  and  the 
scene  is  supposed  now  to  be  before  the  fire  in  the  cottage.  Prob- 
ably they  knocked  at  one  door,  were  greeted  by  the  wife,  went  in, 
and  then  re-entered  at  another  door,  so  indicating  the  change  of 
scene. 

Ir 071  Age  (1632),  p.  379:  The  Greek  soldiers  are  besieging 
Troy.  "Now  with  a  soft  march  enter  at  this  breach,"  they  say. 
"They  march  softly  in  at  one  doore,  and  presently  in  [out]  at 
another."  After  this  direction  the  scene  is  near  the  wooden 
horse,  which  stands  within  the  city. 

Sometimes  the  scene  is  changed  merely  by  the  characters 
walking  about  the  stage,  as  it  probably  was  in  the  illustration  just 
cited  from  Borneo  and  Juliet.  Faustus  (1604),  sc.  11:  Faustus 
having  astonished  the  emperor  by  his  powers,  says  he  wishes  to 
go  home,  and  that  he  prefers  to  walk  "in  this  fair  and  pleasant 
green,"  rather  than  ride.  By  the  end  of  the  scene  he  is  at  home, 
and  sits  down  to  sleep  in  his  chair.  The  1616  version  has  no  such 
confusion  of  place. 

George-a-Greene  (1599),  11.  1037,  1038.  The  shoemaker 
seated  at  his  work  sees  Jenkins  and  picks  a  fight  with  him  which 
is 'to  occur  at  the  town's  end.  "Come,  sir,  wil  you  go  to  the 
townes  end  now  sir?"  "I  sir,  come."  In  this  interval  they  are 
supposed  to  go.  The  line  continues:  "Now  we  are  at  the  townes 
end,  what  say  you  now?" 

If  You  Know  Not  Me  You  Know  Nobody  (1605),  p.  244: 
The  scene  opens  with  a  great  procession.  "Queen  takes  state" — 
that  is,  she  ascends  her  throne;  after  which  she  pardons  her 
enemies  and  oppressors.  When  this  is  over,  Elizabeth  says:  "And 
now  to  London,  lords,  lead  on  the  way."  "Sennet  about  the  Stage 
in  order,"  is  the  following  direction.  Then  the  mayor  of  Lon- 
don meets  them,  saying,  '"I  from  this  citie  London,"  bring  gifts.' 

76 


J 


Some  Principles  of  Elizabethan  Staging  9 

Sir  John  Oldcastle  (1600),  11.  491-701:  At  the  beginning 
the  scene  is  before  Lord  Cobham's  house  (499)  ;  by  600  it  is 
before  an  inn,  and  by  080,  where  the  Aleman  says,  "You  draw  not 
in  my  house,"  it  is  within  the  inn,  all  without  any  clearing  of  th 
stage.  In  902-1162  a  journey  to  Lord  Cobham's  is  similarly 
made.  At  1008  the  house  is  supposed  to  come  in  sight;  at  1132 
the  action  is  before  it. 

Arden  of  Feversham  (1592),  III,  6:  Arden  is  on  his  way 
to  Raynum  Downs.  His  servant's  horse  is  lame,  and  the  servant 
leaves  Arden,  being  told  to  overtake  him  before  reaching  the 
downs.  Lines  61-94  indicate  the  rest  of  the  journey  before  the 
downs  are  reached. 

Captain  Thomas  Stukeley   (1605),  11.  120-335:  An  old  man 
is  going  to  Tom's  chamber.     He  walks  from  an  inn  to  the  house 
of  Stukeley,  the  scene  being  supposed  to  change  finally  to  the 
chamber  itself. 
\        Soiiu'tiiiies,  instt-ad  of  the  scene's  shifting,  the  stage  at  tlic  same 
>^ntoiii('nt  represtniti'd  two  widely  sepeirated  places.      Creizenach,  in  '"'" 
(liscussing  another  point  of  mediaeval  staging,'  gives  the  following 
which  is    applicable  here:    "Noch   1609,   in   der  Widmung   vor 
seinem  Paulus  Naufragiis  rtlhmt  sich  Balth4,sar  Crusius,  er  stelle 
nicht  verschiedene  Orte  zugleich  dar  und  dehke  das  Theater  nicht 
aus  wie  eine  Landkarte."^    This  parting  of  the'^tage  into  diiferent 
continents,  this  labeling  of  the  doors,  what  is  in  but  a  moderniza- 
tion of  the  mediaeval  staging?     Sidney's  'Asialof  one  side  and 
Africa  of  the  other,'  Mayne's  "the  stage  wa^  st^ll  a  stage,  two 
entrances  Were  not  two  parts  o'  the   world  cKsjoin'd   by  seas," 
already  quoted,  show  that,,tlifi'*'eftfHe -tMng  •wfts.ir.ue  in  England.     * 
A  typical  illustratioii  of  this  from  the  plays  of  Shakespeare  is  to  b©  /   "" 
iound  in   Richard  III   (1597),  V,  3,  where  the   tents  of    the*^**^ 
two  rival  generals  are  represented  upon  the  stage  at  once,  and 
therefore  of  course  much  closer  together  than  they  could  naturally 
have  been. 

A  slightly  different  example  occurs  in  Travels  of  the  Three 
^n§li^]]^XQtJieXS^X^^^'^'>^^^^^'^)^V  90.  "Enter  three  seuerall 
waies  the   three  Brothers;  Robert  with   the    state  of    Persia  as 

1  Op.  cit.,  Vol.  II,  p.  102.  2  See  also  ibid.,  Vol.  II,  pp.  101, 102. 

77 


10  George  F.  Reynolds 

before,  Sir  Anthonie  with  the  King  of  Spaine  and  others,  where 
hee  receiues  the  Order  of  Saint  lago,  and  other  Officers;  Sir 
Thomas,  in  England,  with  his  Father  and  others.  Fame  giues  to 
each  a  prospectiue  glasse,  they  seme  to  see  one  another  and  offer 
to  embrace,  at  which  Fame  parts  them,  and  so:  Exeunt."  Fame 
goes  on  to  explain  that  each  is  in  the  country  in  which  he  was 
just  represented,  and  the  play  closes. 

A  very  similar  scene  occurs  in  Eastward  Ho  (1605),  IV,  1. 
The  scene  is  laid  near  the  Thames  at  Cuckold's  Haven.  "Enter 
Slitgut  with  a  pair  of  ox-horns,  discovering  Cuckold's  Haven 
above" — probably  a  scene-board  to  that  effect.  He  mounts  a 
tree  to  leave  upon  it,  according  to  custom,  his  master's  tribute  of 
the  ox-horns,  and  from  that  height — either  of  a  tree  upon  the 
stage  or  of  the  balcony — comments  on  what  he  sees.  "And  now 
let  me  discover  from  this  lofty  prospect,"  he  says,  "what  pranks 
the  rude  Thames  plays  in  her  desperate  lunacy."  He  sees  a  boat 
cast  away  and  one  of  her  passengers  swimming;  "his  next  land 
is  even  just  below  me."  At  these  words  Security  enters  and 
Slitgut  greets  him.  Security  exits  and  Slitgut  again  looks  about 
him.  He  sees  a  woman  swimming  to  shore  at  St.  Katharine's 
and  immediately  the  woman  and  a  waiter  in  a  tavern  at  St. 
Katharine's  come  on  the  stage  below  him  and,  acting  their  parts, 
are  supposed  to  exit  into  the  tavern  there;  Slitgut  sees  Quick- 
silver land  at  Wapping,  and  Quicksilver  appears  on  the  lower 
stage  in  a  short  soliloquy ;  then  a  party  appears  on  the  stage  as 
at  the  Isle  of  Dogs ;  they  meet  Quicksilver,  who  a  moment  before 
was  at  Wapping,  and  a  little  later  Security,  who  landed  at 
Cuckold's  Haven,  enters  to  knock  at  the  tavern  in  St.  Kath- 
arine's. Finally,  when  all  on  the  lower  stage  have  gone,  Slitgut 
descends  with  the  words:  "Now  will  I  descend  my  honorable 
prospect;  the  farthest  seeing  sea-mark  of  the  world;  no  marvel 
then,  if  I  could  see  two  miles  about  me,"  The  tree  or  balcony 
was  throughout  the  scene  supposed  to  represent  Cuckold's  Haven, 
but  the  lower  stage  at  the  same  time  was  Cuckold's  Haven,  St. 
Katharine's,  Wapping,  the  Isle  of  Dogs,  St.  Katharine's,  and 
then  Cuckold's  Haven  again. 

These  examples  of  change  of  scene  and  of  absolute  simultane- 
78 


Some  Principles  of  Elizabethan  Staging  11 

ity  of  scene  show  how  greatly  the  Elizabethan  stage  differed 
from  our  own  in  its  very  conception  and  principle.  It  is  plainly 
enough  not  a  picture  stage,  but  almost  exactly  analogous  to  the 
old  stage  of  mediaeval  days.  So  far  nothing  corresponding  to  the 
"houses,"  etc.,  has  been  called  attention  to,  but  the  juxtaposition 
of  places  far  apart  is  plainly  of  frequent  occurrence.  The  stage 
represents  now  this  place,  now  that,  without  any  division  of 
scenes;  or,  even  more  boldly,  this  place  and  that  at  the  same 
moment.  Actors  remain  upon  the  stage,  while  it,  like  the  magic 
carpet,  shifts  them  about  wherever  the  dramatist  wishes.  We 
are  accustomed  still  to  the  convention  of  dramatic  time  by  which 
we  allow  two  hours  to  pass  in  ten  minutes;  or,  in  the  act  inter- 
vals, twenty  years  in  a  quarter  of  an  hour.  We  have  lost  the 
very  similar  convention  of  dramatic  distance,  if  one  may  coin  a 
new  term,  which,  no  more  illogically  nor  unreasonably,  allowed 
two  feet  to  represent  as  many  miles,  and  annihilated  space  as  the 
other  does  time. 

The  plays,  however,  do  show  exact  parallels  to  the  incongruous 
"houses,"  Percy's  play,  Ciickqueens'  and  Cuckolds''  Ei'vands 
(MSS  dated  1601),'  does  not  differ  in  principle  from  the  plays  of 
the  Middle  Ages.  Instead  of  hell,  Galilee,  Nazareth,  Jerusalem, 
represented  by  some  sort  of  structure,  Harwich,  Maldon,  Colches- 
ter are  represented  by  labels  displayed  simuUaneously  upon  the 
stage.  When  the  scene  was  at  Maldon,  for  example,  the  sign  of 
Harwich  was  as  incongruous  and  realistically  improbable  as  the 
presence  of  Nazareth  and  Jerusalem  on  the  same  stage.  All 
plays  with  scene-boards  which  represented  different  places  must 
have  offered  similar  illustrations.  The  only  reason  why  the 
Faerij  Pastoral  (MSS  dated  1603)  and  Aphrodisial  (MSS 
dated  1602)  do  not  clearly  indicate  this  same  thing  is  because 
their  scenes  are  laid  in  imaginary  places  where  distance  is 
unknown.  The  quotations  from  Sidney  and  Mayne  must  be  a 
third  time  referred  to,  to  remind  the  reader  how  long  the  custom 
of  scene-boards  continued;  it  will  be  noticed  that  it  is  not  against 
the  scene-boards  themselves,  but  against  this  very  matter  of 
unreality,  that  both  critics  were  contending. 

1  See  the  directions  quoted  in  Part  I  of  this  study. 
79 


12  George  F.  Reynolds 

It  may  be  objected  that  scene-boards  are  not  real  properties 
and  do  not  correspond  to  the  old  "houses."  One  can  allow 
incongruous  signs  more  readily  than  incongruous  settings.  But 
the  Errands  with  its  ladder  and  its  Image  of  Tarlton,  and  the 
Faery  Pastoral  with  its  chapel,  kiln,  cot,  oak,  etc.,  certainly 
show  incongruous  properties  which  cannot  be  disputed,  and  which 
would  have  spoiled  the  complete  realism  of  the  stage  picture,  had 
any  been  attempted.  The  scene  already  referred  to  in  the  Eng- 
lish Traveler  (1633),  IV,  3,  was  also  incongruously  staged;  for 
though  the  scene  had  changed  from  a  dining-room  into  a  corri- 
dor, the  pallet  on  which  Geraldine  had  slept  must  still  have 
remained  in  sight.  So  in  the  scene  of  If  You  Know  Not  Me 
You  Know  Nobody.  While  the  procession  passed  about  the 
stage  symbolizing  the  journey  to  London,  the  throne  Elizabeth 
had  used  still  remained  in  its  place.  Practically  all  the  examples 
of  clashes  noted  in  the  preceding  discussion  of  the  alternation 
theory  could  be  used  as  proofs  of  this  incongruous  staging.  The 
weaker  the  argument  to  prove  that  the  doors  and  balcony  were 
outside  the  curtains,  the  stronger  is  the  evidence  for  incongruity 
of  staging.  If  the  doors  and  balcony  were  all  on  the  rear  stage, 
so  that  it  could  not  be  concealed  while  they  were  in  sight,  the 
following  scenes,  already  described,  must,  for  example,  have  pre- 
sented incongruity: 

Antonio's  Revenge  (1602),  II,  1:  The  hearse  of  Andrugio 
certainly  remained  on  the  stage  till  the  end  of  the  scene,  and 
would  be  an  incongruous  property  when  in  the  midst  of  the  scene 
the  place  of  action  changed  to  the  space  before  Mellida's  chamber. 

Wounds  of  Civil  War  (1594),  V,  2:  If  the  balcony  was  not 
outside  the  curtain  and  there  was  no  pause  in  the  play,  the  throne 
used  in  so.  3  must  have  been  on  throughout  sc.  2,  even  though 
the  throne  was  the  seat  of  Sulla  at  Rome  and  the  scene  was  hap- 
pening before  Preneste. 

David  and  Bethsabe  (1599),  I,  2:  If  the  curtain  did  not 
hide  the  balcony  and  there  was  no  pause  in  the  play,  the 
"spring"  in  which  Bethsabe  bathed  must  have  remained  on  in 
this  scene,  before  the  walls  of  Rabath. 

Probably  these  scenes   are  best  explained   by  supposing  the 


Some  Principles  of  Elizabethan  Staging  13 

alcove  stage.      There  are  scenes,  linwcvcr,  in  tlic  old   |)ln_vs  whicli 
the  alcoye  stage  will  not  explain,  and  which  no  assuincd  coid'tirtion 
or  omission  of  the   text   will  account  for^ — scenes  in  which  it  is 
^eairihat  properties   wei-e  on  the  stage  during  scenes  to  whicli" 
they  were  not  at  all  suitaltlc. 

Tiimhurlaine  (1592),  IV,  2:  The  scene  is  described  as  before 
Damascus:  "Now  may  we  see  Damascus'  lofty  tower"  (1.  102). 
Tamburlaine  orders  Bajazeth  brought  forth  and  makes  him  serve 
as  his  footstool:  "Tamburlaine  get  up  on  him  to  his  chair"  (1. 
30).  Though  the  scene  is  clearly  out  of  doors  in  the  open 
country,  an  elevated  regal  chair  is  nevertheless  introduced  without 
comment  or  explanation.  Similar  scenes  occur  in  David  and 
Bethsabe,  II,  4,  and  Wonder  of  Women,  V,  2. 

English  Traveller  (1633),  IV,  p.  79:  The  scene  is  outside  a 
house.  A  number  of  gentlemen,  in  order  to  entrap  Reignald,  a 
servant  who  has  been  deceiving  them,  "withdraw  behind  the 
Arras,"  says  the  direction.  Whether  this  arras  were  the  curtain 
or  not,  whether  it  was  open  or  drawn  across  the  stage,  it  certainly 
was  not  a  suitable  furnishing  for  a  street  scene.  Such  incongru- 
ity must  have  existed  in  practically  every  scene  where  the  stage 
was  supposed  to  represent  anything  but  a  room,  for  the  curtain  in 
every  out  scene  was  ever  present. 

Tifus  Andronicus  (1600),  I,  1:  We  have  become  accustomed 
to  this  scene  from  its  ])re8ence  in  Shakesi)carc ;  l)ut  what  is  the 
congruity  of  having  a  private  tomb  represented  in  the  same 
scene  as  a  meeting  of  the  Senate':'  It  only  shows  that,  in  the 
matter  of  dramatic  convention,  custom  and  not  reason  doniinates. 
Wnetlierwe  should  so  lightly  pass  over  the  incongruity  of  this 
scene  if  it  were  actually  represented  on  our  picture  stage  is 
doubtful. 

Sapho  and  Phao  (1584),  IV,  3:  Sapho,  presumably  in  bed, 
and  her  maids  tell  each  other  their  dreams.  At  the  end  Sapho 
orders  them  to  "draw  the  curtaine."  The  maids  are  not  directed 
to  go  out.  Scene  4  is  at  the  shop  of  Vulcan  where  he  and  his 
men  make  the  arrows  for  Venus.  There  is  no  direct  demand  for 
a  forge,  but  something,  it  seems,  must  have  been  used,  since  the 
making  was  plainly  acted  upon  the  stage.     Bond  supposes  the 

81 


14  George  F.  Reynolds 

forge  to  have  been  behind  the  curtain;  when  the  curtains  were 
closed  after  sc.  2  the  room  furnishings  may,  it  is  true,  have  been 
removed,  and  the  forge  setting  put  in  their  place,  the  curtain 
being  opened  in  sc.  4  when  the  making  of  the  arrows  began. 
Act  V  seems  to  continue  without  a  break,  however,  Venus  and 
Cupid  continuing  upon  the  stage.  Venus  says  she  "will  tarrie 
for  Cupid  at  the  forge,"  while  he  goes  to  Sapho — ^a  remark 
useless  and  meaningless  unless  the  forge  is  on  the  stage  and  she 
actually  does  remain  by  it.  Venus  continues  to  wait  for  Cupid 
into  sc.  2,  which  is  in  Sapho's  chamber  again,  until  finally,  in  the 
middle  of  the  scene,  she  detects  Cupid  in  Sapho's  lap.  Yet  the 
forge  has  not  been  removed.  The  next  and  final  scene  of  the 
comedy  is  before  the  cave  of  Sybilla.  Clearly,  if  a  forge  existed 
—  and  if  it  did  not,  why  the  useless  speech  of  Venus  ?  —  it  was  on 
the  stage  at  the  same  time  that  the  scene  of  action  was  in  Sapho's 
court.  If  there  is  anything  at  all  in  the  "clashes"  of  properties 
— that  is,  if  the  performance  was  continuous — and  if  anything 
represented  the  cave,  it  also  must  have  been  upon  the  stage 
during  the  same  scene,  and,  since  it  is  used  frequently  in  the 
play,  perhaps  was  on  during  the  whole  performance. 

Farasitaster  (160G),  IV,  1:  Bullen  says  the  scene  is  within  the 
palace.  Gonzago  enters  in  full  state.  But  at  1.  638  Dulcimel, 
his  daughter,  says:  "Father,  do  you  see  that  tree,  that  leans  just 
on  my  chamber  window?"  Line  650,  she  says  to  him:  "To 
DulcimeFs  chamber-window  A  well-grown  plane  tree  spreads  his 
happy  arms."  Line  700,  the  Duke  says  to  Tiberio:  "This  plane 
tree  was  not  planted  here  To  get  into  my  daughter's  chamber." 
This  sounds  very  much  as  if  an  actual  tree  were  intended,  though 
it  need  not  necessarily  be  on  the  stage.  But  the  next  act  shows 
that  it  probably  is.  The  action  of  V,  1,  obviously  in  the  same 
scene,  is  told  sufficiently  in  the  directions:  "Whilst  the  Act  is 
a-playing,  Hercules  and  Tiberio  enter;  Tiberio  climbs  the  tree, 
and  is  received  above  by  Dulcimel,  Philocalia,  and  a  Priest: 
Hercules  stays  beneath;"  (1.128)  "The  Duke  enters  ....  and 
takes  his  state;"  (1.  115)  several  people  "lead  Cupid  to  his 
state;"  (1.  461)  "Tiberio  and  Dulcimel  above  are  discovered 
hand  in  hand."     In  short,  a  tree  and  a  throne  were  both  on  the 

82 


Some  Principles  of  Elizabethan  Staging  15 

stage  at  one  time,  the  scene  being  supposed  to  be  at  once  the 
inside  and  the  outside  of  the  palace;  or,  to  state  it  more  exactly, 
nowhere  at  all,  because  no  scene,  no  background,  was  conceived  of. 

The  Brazen  Age  (1613)  :  This  highly  spectacular  play,  surpris- 
ing as  it  is  in  its  demands  upon  the  staging,  was  performed  upon 
a  public  stage,  or,  if  not  performed,  written  by  Heywood,  an 
experienced  playwright,  who  would  not  absolutely  violate  theatri- 
cal custom.^  The  objection  that  the  Brazen  Age  is  too  much 
like  a  masque  to  use  it  for  evidence  of  popular  methods  does  not 
apply  either,  for  it  was  played,  if  played  at  all,  in  a  popular  play- 
house and  must  have  conformed  to  playhouse  customs.  There 
could  have  been  little  difference  anyway  between  masques  and 
popular  plays  in  such  fundamental  dramatic  conventions  as  these. 
If  anything,  the  masques,  appealing  to  the  cultured  and  critical 
audience  at  the  court,  would  have  been  the  more  realistic  and  the 
less  likely  to  use  this  staging  under  discussion.  Any  illustration 
of  it  from  the  Brazen  Age  gets  therefore  added  force  from  this 
consideration  as  well  as  the  later  date  of  the  play. 

Act  5,  sc.  3,  is  as  follows:  Scene  2  was  at  Omphale's,  where 
the  Greek  heroes  have  come  to  rouse  Hercules  from  his  effeminate 
captivity.  He  goes  to  make  a  vow  at  Jove's  altar,  Omphale 
remaining  in  soliloquy.  Scene  3  begins  with:  "Enter  to  the  sac- 
rifice two  Priests  to  the  Altar,  sixe  Princes  with  sixe  of  his  labours, 
in  the  midst  Hercules  bearing  his  two  brazen  pillars,  six  other 
Princes,  with  the  other  six  labours,  Hercules  staies  them."  Lychas 
brings  him,  as  in  the  familiar  story,  the  poisoned  shirt,  and 
Hercules  puts  it  on.  "All  the  Princes  kneel  to  the  Altar."  Hercules 
is  seized  with  agony  and  goes  out  raging,  the  others  except  Lychas 
following  him.  Hercules  returns  directly  to  Lychas  and  kills  him. 
The    scene    meanwhile    must    have    shifted,    for   Omphale    says: 

1  That  these  plays  of  the  Ages  were  probably  performed  the  following  quotations  show  : 
In  "  To  the  Reader  "  of  The  Golden  Age,  Heywood  says :  "  This  is  the  Golden  Age,  the  eldest 
brother  of  three  Ages  that  have  aduentured  the  Stage,  but  the  onely  one  yet  that  hath  beene 
iudged  to  the  Presse."  The  Brazen  Age  is  in  its  address  to  the  reader  called  "the  third 
brother,"  but  has  no  mention  of  acting.  "  To  the  Reader  "  of  The  Iron  Age,  after  speaking 
of  the  Gold,  Silver,  Brass,  and  Iron  Ages  —  the  last  in  two  parts  —  continues:  "Lastly,  I 
desire  thee  to  take  notice,  that  these  were  the  Playes  often  (and  not  with  the  least  applause) 
Publickely  Acted  by  two  Companies,  vppon  one  Stage  at  once,  and  haue  at  sundry  times 
thronged  three  seuerall  Theaters,  with  numerous  and  mighty  Auditories."  Though  "these 
plays"  could  refer  to  the  two  parts  of  The  Iron  Age,  this  is,  as  Ward  says  (Vol.  II,  p.  578), 
quite  improbable.    All  four  were  probably  given  on  the  stage. 

83 


16  George  F.  Keynolds 

"Beneath  this  rocke  where  we  haue  often  kist,  I  will  lament." 
"Enter  Hercules  from  a  rocke  aboue,  tearing  downe  trees." 
Hercules  kils  Omphale  with  a  peece  of  a  rocke,"  and  appeals  to  the 
Princes  to  help  him  in  his  agony.  "All  the  Princes  break  downe 
the  trees  and  make  a  fire,  in  which  Hercules  placeth  himself e." 
"He  burnes  his  Club,  and  Lyons  Skin."  "lupiter  aboue  strikes 
him  with  a  thunder-bolt,  his  body  sinkes  and  from  the  heauens 
discends  a  hand  in  a  cloud,  that  from  the  place  where  Hercules 
was  burnt,  brings  vp  a  starre  and  fixeth  in  the  firmament."  A 
report  comes  of  Deyaneira's  death  and  at  the  command  of  Jason  to 
"take  vp  these  monuments  of  his  twelue  labours",  the  princes 
exeunt,  bearing  off  the  pillars,  which  in  spite  of  the  change  of 
scene  from  temple  to  open  wilderness,  have  remained  upon  the 
stage.  Even  if  this  play  were  not  performed,  Heywood  obviously 
writes  it  with  the  stage  in  mind:  the  conventions  it  illustrates  are 
those  of  the  stage,  and  one  of  those  conventions  is  certainly  that 
of  incongruous  properties. 

These  are  not  all  the  possible  examples  of  scenes  where  a 
property  is  upon  the  stage  during  a  scene  to  which  it  is  unsuitable, 
but  they  are  the  best  and  clearest  I  have  found.  Other  plays,  how- 
ever, illustrate  the  incongruous  staging  in  another  way.  Suppose 
a  play  shows  in  several  scenes  scattered  through  it  the  use 
of  the  same  property  or  setting,  which  is  heavy  or  for  some  reason 
difiicult  to  fix  in  place.  Or  suppose  a  property  so  used  is  small 
and  unobtrusive.  Is  it  not  reasonable  to  suppose,  in  view  of  the 
fact  that  incongruous  properties  were  allowed  upon  the  stage,  that 
these  plays  illustrate  such  a  usage?  Some  examples  have  already 
been  given:  the  tree  in  the  Parasiiaster  used  through  acts  IV  and 
V;  the  cave,  if  one  existed,  in  Sapho  and  Phao,  referred  to  in  II,  1, 
2,  4;  V,  3;  the  lodge,  etc.,  of  the  Faery  Pastoral;  the  ladder  of 
the  Cuckqueens'  and  Cuckolds'  Errands;  and  the  labels  of  the 
same  play.  The  Three  Lords  and  Three  Ladies  of  London  (1590) 
has  hung  up  through  most  of  the  play  the  arms  of  the  Three 
Lords,  for  they  are  all  alluded  to  again  and  again  (pp.  378, 403, 458, 
473,  for  example).  The  scene  does  not  change  very  much,  almost 
approaching  to  a  classical  type  of  staging,  but  certainly  does  a 
little;  and  in  these  scenes  the  arms  were  incongruous. 

84 


Some  Principles  of  Elizabethan  Staging  17 

The  Case  is  Alfercd  (acted  1599),  III,  2,  is  another  example 
of  the  small  unobtrusive  property.  Jacques  in  this  scene  hides 
his  gold  in  a  hole  in  his  yard  and  covers  it  with  horse-dung. 
Scene  3  is  at  Ferneze's  house;  IV,  1,  2,  are  in  the  same;  in  sc.  3 
Juniper  is  in  his  shop  singing,  presumably  on  the  rear  stage;  but 
sc.  4  is  the  same  as  III,  2,  with  the  pile  of  horse-dung  undisturbed 
as  Jacques  left  it.  To  imagine  that  it  had  remained  there  all  the 
time  is  not  difficult,  and,  in  view  of  the  other  illustrations  presented, 
perhaps  it  will  not  be  too  much  to  suppose  that  the  tree  into  which 
Onion  climbs  had  also  been  on  the  stage  throughout  the  inter- 
vening scenes.  Since  the  shop  scenes  almost  certainly,  and  the 
house  scenes,  very  probably,  were  on  the  rear  stage,  the  tree  and 
dung  would  "be  both  on  the  front  stage,  and  incongruous  during 
those  scenes. 

AlpJiojisus  (1599,  but  written  1589?) :  This  play  is  an  illustra- 
tion of  incongruous  staging,  if  any  property  for  woods  existed. 
It  is  one  of  the  plays  which  go  far  toward  proving  that  such  a 
property  did  exist,  for  it  so  uselessly,  and  yet  so  consistently, 
alludes  to  it.  It  is  easy  enough  to  see  why  a  dramatist,  when  a 
plot  imperatively  demands  a  background  of  woods,  might  put  in 
lines  referring  to  them,  even  though  no  real  setting  was  employed ; 
but  when  the  imagined  situation  does  not  require  woods,  or  when 
it  is  actually  out  of  keeping  with  the  presence  of  woods,  such 
textual  allusions  can  be  explained  most  naturally  by  supposing 
that  some  such  setting  actually  existed,  and  that  the  textual  allu- 
sions perhaps  arise  from  its  presence  upon  the  stage.'  Scene  1 
is  practically  unlocated,  but  in  it  Venus,  whom  the  stage  directions 
bade  to  "stand  aside,"  comes  forth  saying:  "From  thickest  shrubs 
dame  Venus  did  espie  The  mortall  hatred  which  you  ioyntly  beare." 
(92,  93).  In  sc.  2  Carinus  bids  farewell  to  his  son  Alphonsus, 
and  says:  "Meantime  Carinus  in  this  sillie  groue  Will  spend  his 
dales  with  praiers  and  horizons"  (179,  180). 

In  II,  1,  Alphonsus  overcomes  Flaminus,  the  usurper  of  the 

1  The  proof  for  wood  settings,  though  not  absolutely  convincing,  is  stronger  than  that 
for  almost  any  other  property,  the  existence  of  which  must  be  established  from  the  plays 
alone.  It  is  too  long  to  be  given  here,  but  will  be  discussed  in  a  later  paper  on  Elizabethan 
properties.  Brodmeier  admits  their  existence  (p.  65).  If  they  existed,  they  took  sometimes 
the  form  of  separate  trees,  for  in  a  large  majority  of  cases  a  single  tree  is  used  as  part  of 
the  wood  scene. 


18  George  F.  Reynolds 

throne,  and  bids  one  of  the  nobles  bring  back  his  army  "Into  this 
wood"  (455).  Though  this  is  not  the  same  wood  as  that  in  sc,  2, 
nor  probably  that  in  sc.  1,  the  setting  seems  the  same.  But  in 
the  midst  of  the  scene  is  the  direction,  "Alphonsus  sit  in  the 
Chaire;"  and  the  place  of  action  seems  quite  uncertain.  Near 
the  end  of  the  scene  Laelius  leads  in  the  soldiers  spoken  of 
before,  and  says  to  them:  "Let  vs  lurke  within  the  secret  shade 
Which  he  [Alphonsus]  himselfe  appointed  vnto  vs"  (699,  700). 

Act  III,  sc.  1,  is  before  Naples,  but  requires  either  chairs  for 
three  kings  or  one  long  seat.  Sc.  2  is  at  the  Turkish  court,  and 
since  the  scene  is  one  of  ceremony  and  Amurack  is  certainly 
sitting,  it  is  possible  that  "chaire"  means  a  throne.  After  the 
visitors  are  gone,  Amurack — his  wife  Fausta  and  his  daughter 
sitting  at  his  feet — falls  asleep,  and  Medea  conjures  up  visions 
before  him,  Colchas  rising  up  through  a  trapdoor  "in  a  white 
Cirples  [surplice]  and  a  Cardinals  Myter."  The  visions  concern 
the  fate  of  his  daughter,  and  Amurack  describes  them  in  his 
sleep.  They  anger  his  wife,  who  wakes  him.  "Amuracke  rise  in 
a  rage  from  thy  chaire."  He  banishes  her,  but  (the  direction  is 
addressed  to  Fausta)  "Make  as  though  you  were  agoing  out, 
Medea  meete  her  and  say,  'Fausta,  what  meanes  this  sudden 
flight  of  yours?  Why  do  you  leaue  your  husbands  princely 
Court,  And  all  alone  passe  through  these  thickest  groues.'" 
Fausta  replies:  "No  toy  ....  nor  foolish  fancie  ledde  me  to 
these  groues."  The  groves  and  chair  were  on  the  stage  at  the 
same  time;  probably  the  grove  remained  on  through  all  the  play, 
or  at  least  to  the  end  of  this  act. 

Two  Lamentable  Tragedies  (1601):  This  play  tells  in  alter- 
nating scenes  the  story  of  two  murders,  one  in  London,  the  other 
in  Italy.  The  London  story  uses  two  shops.  If  anything 
besides  the  doors  represented  the  two  shops — and  it  is  necessary 
to  see  into  both — it  is  not  easy  to  imagine  that  the  shops  were 
taken  ofif  during  each  scene  in  Padua.  Perhaps  labels  above  the 
doors  and  signs  were  all  the  furnishings;  but  even  then  incon- 
gruity would  result. 

Alexander  and  Campaspe  (1584) :     Bond'  supposes  the  tub  of 

1  Vol.  II,  p.  545. 


Some  Principles  of  Elizabethan  Staging  19 

Diogenes  brought  on  and  carried  off  each  time,  this  being  neces- 
sary sometimes  in  the  midst  of  scenes.  It  is  much  simpler  to 
imagine  the  tub  on  the  stage  all  the  time,  and  that  it  was  sup- 
posed included  in  the  scene  of  action  only  when  alluded  to. 

Wonder  of  Women  (1606,  Blackfriars) :  This  play  has 
already  been  alluded  to  several  times,  once  to  prove  that  the 
doors  were  not  concealed  by  the  curtain.  I  believe  that  the  evi- 
dence of  the  play  shows  this  statement  to  be  true;  but  if  it  does 
not,  and  if  the  doors  did  open  on  the  rear  stage,  the  result  is  to 
make  the  staging  only  more  incongruous  than  ever.  The  princi- 
pal illustration  occurs  in  the  third  and  fourth  acts.  Act  III, 
so.  1,  is  in  the  palace  of  Syphax  at  Citra.  He  is  trying  to  compel 
Sophonisba  to  yield  to  him,  and  enters,  dragging  her  in.  She 
finally  feigns  consent,  only  stipulating  that  she  be  allowed  to 
offer  a  private  sacrifice.  He  gives  the  desired  permission,  but 
leaves  behind  him  Vangue,  his  slave,  to  watch  her,  and  bribes 
her  maid  Zanthia.  "Enter  under  the  conduct  of  Zanthia  and 
Vangue  the  solemnity  of  a  sacrifice;  which  being  entered,  whilst 
the  attendants  furnish  the  altar,  Sophonisba  sings  a  song."  She 
sends  away  all  but  Vangue  and  Zanthia,  and,  making  Vangue 
drunk,  "They  lay  Vangue  in  Syphax'  bed  and  draw  the  curtains." 
Then  Sophonisba  escapes  through  a  vault  which  leads  from  the 
bedchamber  to  "a  grove  one  league  from  Citra."  Syphax  enters 
immediately,  and,  "offering  to  leap  into  bed,  he  discovers 
Vangue,"  whom  he  kills,  and  then,  sending  Zanthia  before  him, 
he  goes  through  the  vault  in  pursuit  of  Sophonisba. 

So  far  all  is  congruous  enough.  If  the  curtains  referred  to 
are  those  of  the  rear  stage,  the  door  presumably,  the  trap  and  the 
altar  certainly,  are  on  the  front  stage.  If  only  bed  curtains  are 
intended,  all,  so  far  as  yet  appears,  may  be  on  the  rear  stage. 
Sc.  2,  however,  begins  with  the  direction:  "Enter  Scipio  and 
Laelius  with  the  complements  of  Roman  Generals  before  them. 
At  the  other  door,  Massinissa  [the  husband  of  Sophonisba]  and 
Jugurth."'     This  mention  of  the  doors  shows  that  the  doors  cer- 

1  It  may  be  objected  that  all  the  rear-stage  furnishings  might  have  been  removed  while 
the  curtains  were  closed,  and  the  curtains  again  opened  for  sc.  2.  But  the  succeeding  scenes 
make  this  unlikely.  Of  course,  if  one  wished  to  suppose  even  sc.  2  played  with  the  bed,  etc., 
in  view,  the  doors  may  have  opened  upon  the  curtained  space.  This,  however,  would  only 
add  another  example  of  incongruity— and  throughout  this  argument  I  am  endeavoring  to 
accept  every  possible  objection  and  to  limit  myself  to  unmistakable  illustrations. 

87 


20  George  F.  Reynolds 

tainly  were  outside  the  curtains,  but  does  not  make  clear  whether 
altar  and  trap  were  or  not.  The  scene  is  unlocated,  and  is  only 
eighty-five  lines  long. 

Act  IV  opens  at  the  other  end  of  the  secret  passage. 
"Enter  Sophonisba  and  Zanthia,  as  out  of  a  cave's  mouth." 
From  the  textual  allusions  this  is  clearly  in  a  forest.  One  may 
doubt,  however,  that  any  wood-setting  was  used,  since  this  is  the 
only  scene  in  the  play  requiring  it.  Yet  if  the  theater  had  such 
a  setting  for  other  plays,  perhaps  it  was  used  here  also.  Syphax 
enters  soon  after  Sophonisba,  and,  once  more  failing  in  winning 
her,  sends  her  away.  Then  he  summons  up  a  witch,  Erictho, 
who  promises  to  put  Sophonisba  in  his  power  by  means  of 
charms.  When  he  sees  Sophonisba  approaching  his  bed,  he  is 
to  say  nothing  and  have  no  light  by.  While  Erictho  is  off  the 
stage  working  her  charms  there  is  much  music,  among  other 
directions  indicating  this  being:  "A  treble  viol,  a  base  lute,  etc., 
play  softly  within  the  canopy"  (1.  201) ;  then  "Enter  Erictho  in 
the  shape  of  Sophonisba,  her  face  veiled,  and  hasteth  to  the  bed 
of  Syphax."  After  a  short  speech,  "Syphax  hasteneth  within  the 
canopy,  as  to  Sophonisba's  bed,"  and  the  act  closes. 

Here  three  things  are  noticeable:  first,  the  change  of  scene 
without  clearing  the  stage,  with  the  sudden  reference  to  a  bed  in 
the  midst  of  a  wood  scene;  second,  the  use  of  the  term  "canopy" 
as  if  the  bed  were  concealed  behind  it ;  and,  third,  the  position  of 
the  trap  outside  the  canopy.  The  "canopy"'  seems  equivalent  to 
the  curtains  of  the  rear  stage.  Yet  the  use  of  incongruous  prop- 
erties here  is  not  as  yet  illustrated,  unless  one  assume  a  wood- 
setting  on  the  front  stage,  for  the  bed  was  concealed  by  the 
curtain,  and  the  curtain,  so  commonly  incongruous  in  out  scenes, 
may  for  the  moment  be  disregarded. 

Act  V  continues  the  action  from  the  point  where  Act  IV  left 
off.  The  direction  reads:  "Syphax  draws  the  curtain,"  certainly 
from  within,  "and  discovers  Erictho  lying  with  him" — perhaps 
this  is  the  bed  curtain.  "They  leap  out  of  bed."  "Erictho 
slips  into  the  ground  as  Syphax  ofPers  his  sword  to  her."    Syphax 

1  This  term  seems  used  with  a  similar  meaning  in  other  plays;  e.  g.,  Percy's  Faery 
Pastoral,  "Lowest  of  all  over  the  Canopie  NAHAITBOAAION  or  Faery  Chappell.  In  V,  5, 
characters  went  into  this  chapel  and  "  seated  themselves  both." 


Some  Principles  of  i:!^lizabethan  Staging  21 

kneels  at  the  altar  cursing  when  "Out  of  the  altar  the  ghost  of 
Asdrubal  ariseth." 

The  altar  was  near  the  trap,  probably  in  front  of  it,  so  the 
ghost  could  seem  to  rise  from  the  altar;  the  trap  was  outside  the 
canopy,  as  we  saw  in  the  preceding  act;  therefore  the  altar  was 
also  outside  the  canopy  or  rear-stage  curtain.  It  would  hardlj 
have  been  removed  from  there  during  Act  IV,  and,  if  not,  would 
in  that  scene  have  been  an  incongruous  property.  Why  should 
it  have  been  removed?  This  incongruity  would  not  havb  dis- 
turbed anybody,  for  in  V,  2,  where  the  scene  is  a  battlefield,  there 
is  a  textual  allusion,  "Seize  that  hill,"  and  the  following  direc- 
tions; "Scipio  leads  his  train  up  to  the  mount;"  "Scipio  passeth' 
to  his  throne."  A  battlefield  with  a  throne  is  no  more  incongruous 
than  a  wood  with  an  altar. 

The  Old  Wives'  Tale  (1595,  Queen's):  The  stage  in  this 
play  was  either  the  alcove  stage,  with  the  alcove  arranged  as  a 
study,  or  a  stage  of  one  of  the  other  types,  with  a  door  or  a  struc- 
ture for  the  study.  The  study  was  probably  concealed  by  a  cur- 
tain (p.  343,  where  Delia  is  discovered  sitting  asleep).  In  front 
of  this  curtain,  but,  if  one  chooses,  behind  the  regular  stage  cur- 
tain, stood  a  large  cross  and  a  well  (some  arrangement  of  the 
trap),  in  no  way  associated  in  the  play,  and  perhaps  not  on  the 
stage  at  the  same  time;  there  was  also,  near  the  study  or  cell,  a 
turf  which  concealed  a  glass  holding  a  light.  There  were  on 
the  stage,  probably  all  of  the  time,  a  table,  chairs  or  seats  of 
some  kind,  and  perhaps  a  wood-setting.  That  the  study,  the  cross 
and  the  turf,  and  the  study,  the  well  and  the  turf,  were  on  the 
stage  together,  though  the  study  and  the  well,  and  the  study  and 
the  cross,  are  not  supposed  to  be  related  at  all,  is  shown  by  the 
following  scheme  of  properties: 

Pp.  309-13,  cross;  314,  interlude  by  harvest  men;  314-18,  cross;  318- 
22,  study,  turf,  and  light,  probably  a  table;  322-26,  cross;  327,  song  by 
harvest  men;  327-31,  before  the  cell  or  study;  the  turf  and  light;  SSI- 
SB,  well,  before  the  study;  336-39,  table;  339-41,  the  well;  341^7,  before 
the  study,  the  turf  and  light,  the  trap. 

How  were  these  plays  staged  ?  The  simplest  and  most  reason- 
able answer  seems  to  me  to  be  that  at  the  beginning  of  the  play 


22  George  F.  Reynolds 

all  the  heavy,  naturally  immovable  properties  to  be  used  through- 
out the  performance  were  in  place,  either  on  the  front  or  rear 
stage,  whichever  one  thinks  more  probable ;  or,  better,  with  some 
on  the  front  stage  and  others  behind  the  curtains.  In  the  Old 
Wives'  Tale  perhaps  the  well-setting  was  not  put  on  until  p.  327 
during  the  song,  since  it  was  not  necessary  until  after  that  point. 
Plays  in  which  any  property  was  used  but  once  probably  had  it 
placed  behind  the  curtain,  where  it  could  be  quickly  and  easily 
arranged,  discovered,  and  removed  to  make  way  for  the  next. 
Properties  like  beds  or  banquets  were,  when  circumstances  forbade 
the  use  of  the  rear  stage  or  its  convenient  arrangement,  brought 
on  and  carried  off  at  the  point  where  the  action  demanded.  But 
properties,  either  difficult  to  move,  like  the  well  in  Old  Wives'' 
Tale,  or  so  small  as  to  be  unobtrusive,  like  the  turf  and  light,  were, 
when  once  brought  on,  left  upon  the  stage  as  long  as  they  were  to 
be  used,  even  though  some  scenes  intervened  to  which  they  were 
inappropriate.  As  each  of  them  was  to  be  noticed  by  the  audience 
some  allusion  was  made  to  it  in  the  text  or  it  was  used  in  the 
action;  otherwise  it  was  not  thought  present  any  more  than  the 
Elizabethan  gallants  seated  around  it. 

It  may  be  objected  that  this  solution  is  not  the  only  possible 
one,  that  there  are  very  few  illustrations  cited,  and  that  the  whole 
is  too  unreasonable  to  be  accepted.  On  the  contrary,  this  incon- 
gruity is  more  reasonable  than  the  logical  and  harmonious  alter- 
nation staging.  It  would  be  strange  indeed  if  the  medieeval 
customs,  which  the  studies  of  Creizenach,  Chambers,  and  Jusse- 
rand  show  to  have  continued  down  to  the  time  of  Elizabeth,  had 
suddenly  been  obliterated.  It  would  be  stranger  still  if,  in  the 
midst  of  such  incongruities  as  the  use  of  scene-boards  and  the 
change  of  scene  within  a  scene,  absolute  congruity  in  regard  to 
properties  should  have  existed.  Instead  of  the  incongruous 
staging  being  unreasonable,  it  is,  from  the  point  of  view  of  his- 
tory, the  most  reasonable  of  all.  It  is  not  fair  to  attempt  to  force 
the  plays  into  other  forms.  Of  course,  by  assuming  that,  in  the 
Old  Wives^  Tale,  for  example,  the  cross  was  removed  at  the  end 
of  each  scene  in  which  it  was  used,  and  replaced  again  at  the 
beginning  of  the  next  scene  in  which  it  was  required,  the  incon- 

90 


Some  Principles  of  Elizabethan  Staging  23 

gruity  can  be  explained  away.  But  why  should  one  do  so?  The 
scenes  from  Tamhurlaine,  Titus  Andronicus,  The  Parasitaster, 
The  Brazen  Age,  etc.,  cannot  be  so  explained;  The  Cuckqueens'' 
and  Cuckolds''  Errands  cannot  by  any  scheme  be  made  other  than 
incongruous;  dramatic  distance,  and  change  of  scene  within 
scenes,  surely  existed.  Merely  because  our  notions  of  propriety 
do  not  allow  such  things  now  is  no  reason  for  denying  them  in  the 
past.  It  is  true  that  there  are  comparatively  few  examples;  if 
there  had  been  many,  they  would  not  so  long  have  escaped  obser- 
vation. The  large  number  of  lost  plays,  moreover,  especially  of 
this  earlier  period,  must  not  be  forgotten.  For  one  illustration 
still  existing,  there  may  originally  have  been  a  dozen.  It  is  also 
necessary  to  notice  that  of  existing  plays  only  a  very  few  are  at 
all  definite  as  to  their  staging,  and  that,  the  more  circumstantial 
and  precise  the  directions,  the  more  the  traces  of  incongruous 
staging.  If  the  inconclusive  plays  had  been  published  with 
complete  and  specific  directions,  the  chances  are  that  our  list  of 
examples  would  be  doubled.  I  have  used  as  my  tests  of  incon- 
gruity the  presence  in  the  same  scene  of  incongruous  properties, 
and  the  recurrence  in  a  play  of  a  property  not  easily  moved  or  too 
small  to  be  much  in  the  way.  This  is  a  severe  test,  a  situation 
which  few  plots  would  be  likely  to  bring  about.  There  are  prob- 
ably other  manifestations  of  mediaeval  custom  on  the  Elizabethan 
stage  which  we  know  nothing  of  and  which  we  have  as  yet  no 
means  of  detecting.  There  are  other  plays,  such  as  Dido,  Histrio- 
mastix,  Lovers  Meiamorphosis,  which  I  think  furnish  examples 
when  tried  even  by  these  tests,  but  which  are  not  certain  enough 
to  be  cited  as  evidence.  In  view  of  these  considerations,  even  the 
few  illustrations  assume  an  importance  out  of  proportion  to  their 
number.  The  fact  that  the  plays  from  which  they  are  drawn  vary 
widely  in  date,  in  author,  and  in  place  of  production,  renders 
them  all  the  more  valuable  and  makes  the  proof  of  the  existence 
of  an  incongruous  staging  on  the  Elizabethan  stage  as  sure  as 
any  proof  on  such  a  subject  can  be. 

One  may  almost  say,  indeed,  that    it  is  the  only  theory  of 

>^     staging  which  could  have  been  true  of  the  Shakespearean  theater. 

That  theater  could  not,  in  the  very  nature  of  things,  have  had  a 

■  91 


24  George  F.  Reynolds 

picture  stage:  the  shifts  of  scene  just  alluded  to  forbade  it;  the 
spectators  seated  upon  the  stage  forbade  it;  the  ever-present  cur- 
tain as  a  background  for  all  front-stage  scenes  forbade  it.  If  the 
dramatists  had  attempted  to  secure  perfect  realism,  they  would 
have  been  bound  to  stricter  rules  than  the  Greeks.  The  chorus 
was  liberty  itself  as  compared  with  these  conditions;  for  the 
chorus  could  be  of  any  city  and  of  any  time;  the  Elizabethan 
stage  audience  was  always  Elizabethan  and  the  scene  must  always 
I  have  been  London.  \The  very  strictness  of  the  bonds  compelled 
I  them  to  be  broken,  and  the  stage  for  the  playwright  of  Shake- 
I  speare's  day  was  necessarily  only  a  platform  upon  which  his 
icharacters  stood,  while  the  scene  was  anywhere  his  fancy  dictated 
{or  his  plot  required.  The  properties  did  not  picture  the  back-i 
round,  they  only  suggested  and  symbolized  it. 
This  conclusion  explains  several  things  in  connection  with  the 
plays.  The  curtain,  so  necessary  in  the  view  of  the  alternation- 
ists,  becomes  of  secondary  importance,  and  one  understands  why 
there  are  so  few  directions  for  it.  Possibly  not  many  more  rear- 
stage  scenes  occurred  than  the  directions  definitely  indicate. 
One  understands,  too,  why  there  are  so  few  directions  for  the  use 
of  properties,  though  the  textual  demands  are  more  numerous, 
and  though  we  know  that  the  stage  was  furnished  with  fair  com- 
pleteness. If  they  were  put  in  place  at  the  beginning  of  the  play 
and  remained  throughout  the  performance,  directions  concerning 
them  would  be  useless.  For  example,  the  table,  which  seems  so 
often  assumed  as  present,  probably  was  present  most  of  the  time, 
standing  out  of  the  way  in  one  corner  when  not  in  use,  and,  when 
desired,  brought  into  the  center  of  the  stage.  Perhaps,  too,  this 
custom  explains  the  number  of  textual  allusions  to  properties: 
these  allusions  were  possibly  inserted,  not  to  take  the  place  of 
properties,  but  to  indicate  which,  at  the  moment,  were  to  be  noticed. 
This,  however,  could  not  have  been  very  necessary.  There  is  no 
reason  for  supposing  that  a  large  number  of  properties  ever 
crowded  the  stage.  The  Old  Wives'  Tale  and  the  Faery  Pastoral 
— the  first  with  its  cross,  well,  study,  and  turf;  the  second  with 
its  kiln,  cot,  oak,  and  well — are  certainly  more  crowded  than  most 
of  the  plays. 

92 


Some  Principles  of  Elizabethan  Staging  25 

Certain  opinions  concerning  the  Elizabethan  theaters  are  con-         ! 
firmed  by  this  incongruous  staging.      One  of  these  is  not,  however, 
that  which  pictures  the  Shakesperean  audience  as  primitive  and 
chikllike  in  imagination.     That  they  accepted  such  an  unrealistic 
staging  was  a  result,  not  of  any  peculiar  quality  of  their  minds, 
but  of  their  education  and  previous  dramatic  experience.      It  does         ; 
not  show  that  they  were  lacking  in  a  desire  for  realism  in  their         | 
stage  productions.     Hardly  a  page  of  the  accounts  of  the  office        f 
of  the  Revels,  which  arranged  the  court  plays,  but  shows  how        f 
strong  this  desire  was.     But  the  desire  for  realism  seems  to  have 
been  concerned  more  with  the  individual  properties  than  with  a        ; 
realistic  general  setting.  '""^^treTerj;;;;cohsideration  of  the  Eliza-       [ 
bethan  theater  tKe  fact  must  be  remembered  that  it  was  not  an       f 
illusion,  a  picture  stage,  but  that  it  was  largely  symbolic.     From       I 
that  point   of  view,  its  body  of   stage   customs  is  complex,   but 
reasonable;  from  any  other,  it  is  absurd  and  inexplicable. 

The  opinion,  often  expressed,  that  the  poetry  of  this  drama        » 
was  largely  owing  to   the  conditions  of  its  production  is  in  a        I 
measure   true.     The    stage    was   certainly    fairly   provided   with        1 
\       furnishings,  but  creatinglTrEe'scemcTalTusion,  could"nol"a3equately       ;  j 
I       create  "atmosphere,"  and  it  became  the  task  of  the  poet  to  d.o       ;| 
I       {Be  work  of  the  scene-painter.     Not  so  much  by  description" of 
I      the    actual    imagined    setting — -that    wourcr"6nly'  increase     ttfe         s 
I     incongruity — but  by  the  general  tone  which  the  poetry  gives, 
%    ^Shakespeare  and  almost  all  the  early  dramatists  strove  to  itfiiinine 
i  J;heir_^ym5olic  stage. 

As  the  symbolic  stage  increased  the  task  of  the  dramatist  by 
requiring  that  he  supply  the  background  which  it  could  not;  it  at 
the  same  time  gave  him  greater  freedom.  Many  have  called 
attention  to  the  influence  in  this  way  of  the  triple  stage;  the 
incongruous  staging  certainly  increased  it  also.  Because  of  this 
freedom,  the  drama  was  able  to  deal  with  many  subjects  no  longer 
considered  possible  to  it.  The  constructive  importance  of^cts 
and  scenes  seems  almost  to  have  been  unobserved;  almost  every 
sceuL'^^gan  with  an  entrance  and  endecy  (^ot  with  a  situation^ 
Kiut_witk.aii..eiit,)  binding  the  ^.whole  play  into  one  connected 
^oryi^  while    in    many  cases    the    plot   was    not    dramatic,   Hut 

93 


26  George  F.  Reynolds 

rather  a  history,  a  novel,  or  a  romance  told  in  dialogue. 
Tamburlaine  is  such  a  play;  so  are  most  of  Shakespeare's  his- 
torical plays.  They  begin  at  the  beginning,  and  they  tell  the 
whole  story  with  all  its  details.  It  is  useless  to  attempt  to  fit  them 
into  the  dramatic  strait- jacket  of  exposition,  climax,  and  resolii- 
,tion.  What  is  obviously  true  of  thesei  plays  is  probably  true  of 
many  others.  One  may  be  permitted  to  question  whether  it  ever 
occurred  to  most  of  the  dramatists  that  there  was  such  a  thing 
as  dramatic  construction  in  the  sense  in  which  we  understand  it; 
and  to  doubt  if  there  is  much  advantage,  except  a  possible 
pedagogic  one,  in  striving  to  make  their  plays  comply  with  this 
modern  theory.  Rather,  theirs  was  a  narrative  art,  and  their 
subjects  were  often  narrative  subjects.  They  dealt  with  tliese 
subjects  as  a  novelist  does,  giving  the  smaller  points  as  well  as 
the  greater.  Often  the  plays  lack  any  dominating  conflict,  but 
are  rather  a  series  of  dramatic  situations  clustered  about  some 
single  figure.  To  say  that  this  was  all  a  result  of  the  stage 
construction  and  stage  customs  would  be  extreme  and  untrue,  but 
their  influence  must  have  been  great.  In  its  fulness  of  treatment 
of  the  story,  in  its  narrative  rather  than,  its  dramatic  art,  in  its 
greater  range  of  subject,  the  Elizabethan  drama  shows  the 
influence  of  the  Elizabethan  stage. 

Which  of  the  four  forms  of  staging — the  simple  method  of 
the  early  days,  the  classical  method  of  Jocasta,  the  alternation 
staging,  or  the  incongruous — was  most  prevalent,  is  a  question 
which  must,  in  the  very  nature  of  things,  remain  open.  The 
classical  form  could  not  have  been  very  common,  for  the  plays  in 
their  frequent  changes  of  scene  would  not  allow  it.  The  others 
seem  rather  to  have  been  used  together  than  in  any  separate  and 
carefully  distinguished  way.  The  Old  Wives'  Tale,  for  example, 
may  have  changed  during  the  outer  scenes  the  study  of  Sacrapant 
into  a  place  where  Delia  is  discovered  asleep,  so  illustrating  the 
alternation  principle;  but  the  previous  presence  of  incongruous 
properties  shows  the  staging  of  the  play  to  have  been  symbolic 
also.  \  Absolute  tests  for  both  alternation  and  incongruity  are 
lacking;  it  is  therefore  impossible  to  give  any  definite  answer  to 
the  question   opening  the   paragraphs     But   if    the   question  be 

94 


Some  Principles  of  Elizabethan  Staging  27 

varied  to  ask  what  is  the  relative  frequency  of  apparent  confusion 
and  consistency,  some  answer  may  be  attempted.  For  as  these 
changes  of  place  within  the  scene,  this  dramatic  distance,  this 
incongruity  of  properties  are  all  confusion  from  our  point  of 
view,  so  alternation  is  consistency  and  orderliness.  This  is, 
indeed,  one  of  the  arguments  against  it.  What  chance  was  there 
for  orderliness  or  consistency,  such  as  the  alternation  theory 
demands,  on  a  stage  where  there  was  so  much  confusion  and 
incoherence?  The  alternation  theory  really  means  an  approach 
to  the  modern  notion  of  an  harmonious  stage  picture.  There  was 
no  chance  for  the  congruity  it  demands,  unless  one  grant  the 
existence  of  the  alcove  rear  stage.  In  that  case  it  is  conceivable 
that  the  Elizabethan  theater  presented  a  stage  at  once  modern 
and  mediaeval  in  its  customs.  By  1603  the  mediaeval  customs 
were  not  gone  out  of  use ;  the  symbolic  use  of  properties,  incon- 
gruity, the  convention  of  dramatic  distance,  still  existed.  But  on 
the  rear  stage,  if  we  are  not  compelled  to  suppose  every  scene 
using  the  door,  the  balcony,  or  properties,  as  behind  the  curtain, 
there  may  have  been  presented  a  congruous  stage  picture, 
especially  if  the  rear  stage  were  not  too  large  to  be  furnished 
with  fair  completeness.  Even  in  the  Wonder  of  Women,  for 
example,  the  rear  stage  could  then  in  every  important  detail  have 
represented  a  bedroom,  and  though  the  altar,  the  throne,  even 
the  trees  perhaps,  were  all  in  plain  sight  on  the  front  stage,  in 
mediaeval  fashion,  the  rear  stage  would  nevertheless  be  coherent 
and  harmonious  in  itself. 

If  this  was  actually  the  case,  and  complete  realism  was  once 
really  introduced  even  in  a  few  scenes,  it  is  easy  to  see  that  the 
tendency  would  be  to  make  all  the  play  similarly  realistic,  and 
that  the  mediaeval  customs  would  gradually  disappear.  This 
would  be  true  because  the  people  were  naturally  fond  of  realism 
and  delighted  in  it,  and  because  men  like  Sidney  and  Jonson, 
accustomed  to  classical  unity  and  propriety,  were  already  object- 
ing to  the  old  incongruity. 

But  it  seems  to  me  impossible  to  trace,  during  the  strict 
Elizabethan  period  at  least,  any  marked  decay  of  mediaeval  cus- 
tom.    The  illustrations   which  I   have  cited  date  from  the  last 

95 


28  George  F.  Reynolds 

years  of  the  period  quite  as  often  as  from  the  earlier  years.  Only 
two  cases  showing  elimination  of  incongruity  are  known  to  me, 
and  they  may  be  purely  fortuitous.' 

Plays  really  illustrating  these  incongruities  may,  of  course, 
from  our  imperfect  means  of  detecting  them,  pass  unnoticed,  and 
other  forms  of  incongruity  may  also  have  existed  of  which  we 
know  nothing.  Perhaps  a  critical  study  of  all  the  plays  produced 
between  1559  and  1642  would  show  more  clearly  the  way  in 
which  the  mediaeval  customs  were  lost  in  the  modern,  but  that  is 
outside  my  present  inquiry.  All  I  am  attempting  to  show  is  that 
in  1603  the  English  theater  still  exhibited  in  the  apparent  confu- 
sion of  its  staging  traces  of  mediaeval  influence. 

("Apparent"  confusion,  however,  for  the  incongruous  staging 
is  incongruous  only  so  long  as  we  insist  upon  looking  at  it  from 
a  modern  point  of  view.     If  we  once  fully  admit  that  the  Eliza- 
bethan stage  was  hardly  more  than  a  platform  for  acting  and  not 
a  mimic  world  in  itself,  the  performance  of  a  play  with  •'incon- 
gruous"   staging    becomes    no    more    incongruous    than    is    the 
/performance    of   a   modern  public   reader.     Grenee^  and  Kilian^ 
/have  both  noted  the  symbolic  nature  of   the  Elizabethan  front 
I  stage,  but  they  have  not  noted,  or    have  indeed   denied   these 
/  farther  proofs  of  symbolism — the  scene- boards,  dramatic  distance, 
I    incongruous  properties,  etc.,  the  very  customs  which  make   the 
/     recognition  of  symbolism  most  necessary  and  most  important.    To 
I     insist  upon  the  modern  point  of  view  as  regards  the  staging  of 
I      the  old  plays  is,  of  course,  to  make  them  seem  unreasonable  and 
absurd.     So  long  as  editors  continue  to  introduce  into  the  old 
plays  their  own  misleading  divisions  into  scenes  and  their  own 

1  Faustus  (1604),  sc.  11,  shows  a  shift  of  scene  which  the  1616  version  avoids.  James  IV 
(1598)  has  two  sets  of  act  interludes.  One  set  (printed  by  Manly  between  each  act)  indicates 
exits  at  the  end  of  each  interlude,  and  the  references  to  "our  harbour  "  (331),  "our  sell" 
(369),  suggests  that  Oberon  and  Bohun  concealed  themselves  in  the  tomb  mentioned  in  the 
Induction.  This  tomb  would  thus  be  an  incongruous  setting  during  the  scenes  of  the  play 
itself.  The  other  set  (printed  by  Manly,  p.  331)  allows  the  supposition  that  Oberon  and 
Bohuu  remained  in  the  balcony  throughout  the  play  observing  the  action,  since  there  is  no 
hint  that  the  two  went  oii  at  the  end  of  each  interlude.  If  the  tomb  were  actually  so  used 
in  the  former  set  of  interludes  (and  this  is  doubtful),  and  if  the  gallery  were  the  place  of 
observation  in  the  other  set  (and  this  is  doubtful,  too),  the  second  set  would  make  unneces- 
sary an  incongruous  property.  In  neither  Faustus  nor  James  IV,  however,  is  it  at  all 
certain  that  the  versions  showing  incongruity  represent  the  earlier  form  of  production. 

2  Jahrbuch,  Vol.  XXVI,  pp.  139  tf.  3  ibid.,  Vol.  XXXVI,  p.  231. 

96 


Some  Principles  of  Elizabethan  Staging  29\ 

meaningless  location  of  scenes,  so  long  will  the  plays  seem  chaotic 
and  unintelligible.  But  as  soon  as  they  are  considered  from  the 
point  of  view  of  the  symbolic  stage,  there  is  hardly  an  extant  play 
which  does  not  in  its  staging  become  reasonable,  coherent,  and 
eflFective.  The  actual  restoration  of  the  Elizabethan  stage  is 
probably  neither  possible  nor  desirable;  most  modern  audiences, 
seeing  one  of  Shakespeare's  plays  presented  as  in  his  day,  would 
in  all  probability  be  only  confused  and  irritated.  Perhaps  the 
unset  front  stage  may  still  prove  advantageous  in  Shakespearean 
productions,  but  the  old  customs  of  scene-boards,  sudden  shifts  of 
place  within  scenes,  incongruous  properties,  etc.,  are  probably 
lost  forever.  But,  if  lost  to  the  stage,  they  are  not  necessarily 
lost  to  the  closet,  and  as  readers,  if  not  as  spectators,  of  the  Eliza- 
bethan drama,  we  can  still  see  it  as  it  was  and  not  as  modern 
conditions  make  it  appear  to  be. 

I  have  in  this  discussion  endeavored  among  minor  matters  to 
make  clear  the  existence  of  scene-boards,  the  existence  of  three 
stage  doors,  and  the  probability  of  the  existence  of  an  alcove  rear 
stage,  though  also  insisting  that  no  one  form  of  stage  was  uni- 
versal or  exclusive.  In  more  general  topics  I  have  attempted 
only  to  show  that  the  advocates  of  alternation,  in  founding  their 
speculations  on  too  narrow  a  basis  and  on  an  as  yet  unproved,  if  not 
improbable,  idea  of  stage-construction,  are  using  tests  contra- 
dictory to  each  other  and  sometimes  certainly  untrue;  that,  in 
consequence,  the  theory  has  been  supposed  to  apply  where  it 
certainly  does  not,  and  its  importance  overemphasized;  that 
Elizabethan  stage  custom,  instead  of  being  the  simple,  essentially 
modern  thing  the  alternationists  would  make  it,  was  a  complex 
growth^  uniting  with  some  realistic  methods  elements  of  incon- 
gruity similar  to,  if  not  derived  from,  those  of  the  mediaeval 
stage;  and  that,  i£  wa  would  secure  a  proper  idea  of  the  Eliza- 
bethan drama,  we  must  abandon  our  modern  notions  of  stage 
propriety,  and  read  the  old  .plays  from  the  point  of  view  of  the 
symboHc  '4ncoii^ruaiis     stage. 


Shattuck  School, 
Faribault,  Minn. 

97 


George  F.  Reynolds. 


r 


RETURN  TO  the  circulation  desk  of  any 

University  of  California  Library 

or  to  the 

NORTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 
BIdg.  400,  Richmond  Field  Station 
University  of  California 
Richnnond,  CA  94804-4698 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 
2-month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling 

(510)642-6753 
1-year  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing  books 

to  NRLF 
Renev^als    and    recharges    may    be    made    4    days 

phor  to  due  date 


DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 

- 

^'F^- OK  1995 

-^ETURNED 

DEC  2  J  1995 

Santa  Cruz                                                                         _ 



I   20,000(4/94)  PY 

FORM  NO.  DD6,  40m,  3/78  BERKELEY,  CA  94720 

®s 


^^■''"•^■'4i 


